21,5
-CI
1^13
School of Law
Library
'A?9WV\>n^vWWn?S?^
tEET CRIME IN AMERICA
(THE POLICE RESPONSE)
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON CRIME
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
APRIL 9-13, 16-19 ; MAY 1-3, 8, 9, 1973
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Part 1 of 3 Parts
Part 2.— CORRECTIONS APPROACHES
Part 3.-PR0SECUTI0N AND COURT INNOVATIONS
1'/.
c
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Crime
(Created pursuant to H. Res. 256)
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
95-168 O WASHINGTON : 1973
Si 9/
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Price $3.70 domestic postpaid or $3.25 GPO Bookstore
Stock Number 5270-01871
^UegUiEASTEiiH U;i..i:iS:TY SGilGOl of LAW LSBRARY
SELECT COMMITTEE ON CRIME
CLAUDE PEPPER, Florida, Chairman
JEROME R. WALDIE, California CHARLES E. WIGGINS, California
FRANK J. BRASCO, New York SAM STEIGER, Arizona
JAMES R. MANN, South Carolina LARRY WINN, Jr., Kansas
MORGAN F. MURPHY, Illinois CHARLES W. SANDMAN, Jr., New Jersey
CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York WILLIAM J. KEATING, Ohio
Chris Nolde, Chief Counsel
Richard P. Lynch, Deputy Chief Counsel
James E. McDonald, Assistant Counsel
Robert J. Trainor, Assistant Counsel
(II)
<IJ WAj
CONTENTS
Dates Hearings Held
part 1. — the police be8p0n8e
April 9, 1973 _ _ _ _ ^"^!
April 10, 1973 _ ~~~_~_ ~_~ ~ _~_ oJ
April 11, 1973 __"_ ~_ ~~~ JZ%
April 12, 1973 ~__ H^
April 13, 1973 i°l
559
PAKT 2. — CORRECTIONS APPROACHES
April 16, 1973 __ «.„
April 17, 1973 __I__I"__ ^tL
April 18, 1973 _"" i;^
April 19, 1973 ----"— IIIIIIIIII"!!!!"""" 907
PART 3.— PROSECUTION AND COURT INNOVATIONS
May 1, 1973 o^o
May 2, 1973 _ ^^^
May 3, 1973 _ "__ ~__~__ fyJJ
May 8, 1973 |^™
May 9, 1973 -^^^^--^l^ZTHI^ZZmill^' 1279
Statements of Witnesses
Alexandria, Va., U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Hon. Albert V
Bryan, judge ^201 i205
Allen Milton J State's attorney, Baltimore City, State's attorney '7 office '
Baltimore, Md ' j23q
^^l?\-^!?^^^L^-' general counsel, MetrVpoTitan'pJfice"Departmen"t"
Washington, D.C ' „^
American Bar Association, Washington, D.c" "
Ford Robert C, director, activation program for correctional reform 939
Hughes, Richard J., chairman, Commission on Correctional Facilities
and Services Q„q
Skoler, Daniel J., staff director. Commission on Correctional" FacUmes
and Services _ ooq
Armstrong, William, sergeant, St. Louis, Mo." PolTce'DepaVtment 423
Arthur, Hon^ Lindsay G.. judge. District Court, Juvenile DivisionrMiL"
neapolis, Minn _._
Baltimore, Md. : ----- ^^45
Allen, Milton B., State's attorney for the city of Baltimore, State's
attorney's office _ _ _'_ _ ^^233
^^office^^^^''*^ ^■' ^^^^^' ^^^^^^^ crimes liaison unit' State's"at"to"nie"y"'s
Moylan, Hon. Charles E., Jr., as~s"o^iate~"j~u"d"ge",~s"tate"Court'of"~s"pe"c"ia"l ^^^
Appeals *^ .2QQ loqq
DeTa'itmenr^' ^'^^^^^ ""^* commande"r:""D"e"troi"t:""MTch:,"~"p"olice
^tfnT T?''^'^^ ^.,"ca"ptai"n7s"a"n""An"oyo"n;"T;x:,"p"oh"ce""De"pa;tm^^^^^^ 111, ^^'^
Rrn^^' Rfhard L., patrolman, Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Departments. 247,250
S. niL^;I;'J/'''^°"' Community Services Division, Dallas, Tex.,
444,451
(ni)
IV
Page
Brown Charles E., patrolman, Kansas City, Mo., Police Department 562, 573
Bryan, Hon. Albert V., judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit,
Alexandria, Va 1201, 1205
Busch, Joseph, district attorney, Los Angeles County, Calif 107 <, 1089
California, Los Angeles County, Joseph Busch, district attorney 1077, 1089
Callier, Leroy, patrolman. New York City Police Department 6, 18
Camp, Eugene J., chief of police, St. Louis, Mo., Police Department 423
Casey, Hon. Bob, a U.S. Representative from the State of Texas 1077
Cawley, Donald F., chief, Patrol Services, New York City Police
Department "> 1") 41
Chamberlin, John D., sergeant, Chicago (111.) Police Department 276
Chicago (111.) Police Department officials, panel of 276
Chamberlin, John D., sergeant 276
Crosby, Wayne, community service aide 308
Jungheim, Annette K., community service aide 296
Nolan, Samuel W., deputy superintendent 276
Rottman, Herbert R., lieutenant 287
Churchill, Winston L., chief, Indianapolis (Ind.) Police Department 136
Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department officials, panel of 247
Brand, Richard L., patrolman 250
Espelage, Howard, captain 255
Goodin, Carl V., chief of police 247
Lind, Carl A., director, program management division 254
Panno, Lawrence C, patrolman 251
Conyers. Hon. John, Jr., a U.S. Representative from the State of Michigan- 381
Crosby, Wayne, community service aide, Chicago (111.) Police Department 276, 303
Crowley, Donald F., sergeant, neighborhood patrol team commander. New
York City Police Department 41, 64
Dallas, Tex., Police Department 444
Brown, Arlyn J., director, community services division 451
Heath, Edwin D., Jr., director, criminal justice interface division 444
DeMuro, Paul, assistant commissioner of after care, State department of
youth services, Boston, Mass 649, 674
Detroit, Mich., Police Department officials, panel of 382
iBannon, James, STRESS unit commander 387
Martin, Ronald H., patrolman 389
Nichols, John J., commissioner 382
Ricci, John P., patrolman SM
Eisdorfer, Simon, deputy chief inspector. New York City Police
Department 41, 56
Espelage, Howard, captain, Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department 247,255
Fenley, Thomas T., sergeant, San Antonio, Tex., Police Department 541, 545
Fixsen, Dr. Dean, research associate. Achievement Place Research Project,
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kans 868,870
Florida (Tallahassee) Division of Youth Services, Oliver J. Keller,
director 766
Ford, Robert C, director. Activation Program for Correctional Reform,
American Bar Association. Washington, D.C 939
Freeman, Arthur A., deputy inspector, New York City Police Department-- 41, 85
Garritani, Carl, patrolman. New York City Police Police Department 6, 17
Gillespie, James, attorney, San Antonio, Tex 1281, 1290
Gersh, Howard B., chief, violent crimes liaison unit, State's attorney's
office, Baltimore, Md 1233
Giarrusso, Clarence B., superintendent. New Orleans, La., Police Depart-
ment 95
Glenn, Robert, patrolman, San Antonio, Tex., Police Department 541, 547
Gonzalez, Hon. Henry B., a U.S. Representative from the State of Texas 1279
Goodc'hild, Lester, executive officer, Criminal Court of the City of New
York 1006
Goodin, Carl V., chief of police, Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department 247
Greene, William Robert, captain, homicide and robbery division, Indian-
apolis (Ind.) Police Department 136,143
Halleck, Hon. Charles White, judge, Superior Court of the District of
Columbia 1143
Page
Hamilton, William A., PROMIS, Office of the U.S. Attorney, U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice ll'^2
Harder, Dr. Robert, director. State department of social welfare, Topeka,
Kans S^^
Head, James, patrolman, Kansas City, Mo., Police Department 562, 564
Heath, Edwin J., Jr., director, Criminal Justice Interface Division, Dallas,
Tex., Police Department 444
Hubert, Frank, lieutenant. Auto Crime Unit, New York City Police
Department ^> ^
Hughes, Richard J., chairman. Commission on Correctional Facilities and
Services, American Bar Association, Washington, D.C 930
Indianapolis (Ind.) Police Department 136
Churchill, Winston, L., chief 136
Green, William Robert, captain, homicide and robbery division 143
Isenst-adt, Paul, senior field director, National Assessment of Juvenile
Corrections, University of Mi<?higan, Ann Arbor, Mich 813
John Howard Association, Chicago, 111., Joseph R. Rowan, executive
director '^^
Jordan, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Representative from the State of Texas 1075
Jungheim, Annette K., community service aide, Chicago (111.) Police
Department T— ;;— . ' ^
Justice, U.S. Department of, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Superior Court
Division:
Hamilton, William A ^j;^
Work, Charles R., chief 11^^
Kansas City, Mo., Police Department 5^^
Brown, Charles E., patrolman oTrf
Head, James, patrolman 5^
Post, James, patrolman ^^
Stephens, Darrel W., patrolman 581
Sweeney, Thomas J., task force programs coordinator obJ
Kansas (Topeka) Department of Social Welfare, Dr. Robert Harder,
director — ^^^
Kansas, University of, Lawrence, Kans., Achievement Place Research
Project: . „^
Fixsen, Dr. Dean, research associate — - »^
Wolf, Dr. Montroe M., professor «"», »^u
Kastner, John H., detective. New Orleans, La., Police Department ——_- »5
Keating, Lucy, program development specialist, Department of Youth
Services, Boston, Mass _ T^TrZ ^7""" Vai
Keller Oliver, director. State division of youth services, Tallahassee, lla__ 7bb
Leenhouts, Keith J., director. Volunteers in Probation. Royal Oak, Mich 907
Leonard, Robert F., prosecuting attorney, Genesee County, Mich-_- _- lUOd
Lind. Carl A., director. Program Management Division, Cincinnati (Ohio)
Police Department — -- — -—"I I; ««
Luhrs, Robert E., deputy inspector. New York City Police Department— 41, 66
Martin, Rinal L., sergeant. New Orleans, La., Police Department 9o, 12b
Martin, Ronald H., patrolman, Detroit, Mich., Police Department SUA d89
Massachusetts Department of Youth Services :
Bergeron, Miss, client 'J^
Hall, Mr., client '^"
Keating, Lucy, program development specialist 'w
LaBonte, Miss., client ^xV
DeMuro, Paul, assistant commissioner of after care b^y, b*^
Pollock, Mr., client I^J!
Ruth, Miss., client '""
Massachusetts, panel of juvenile corrections experts:
DeMuro, Paul, assistant commissioner of after care, State department
of vouth services, Boston -Z—r.-Z 649, b/4
Miller, Dr. Jerome G., director. State department of children and
family services, Springfield V"".""""^ ^
Ohlin, Prof. Lloyd E., director. Institute on Criminal Justice, Harvard
University, Cambridge -^ir'T'^^'Vi:
Meador, Prof. Daniel J., University of Virginia Law School, Chariottes-
•11 '\Tn „ — — — — J-^V-L
Metca^lfe, Ho'n.'Ra'lprH.7a"u.s'.~Representative from the State of Illinois— 283
VI
services, Springfield, Mass ^^^^ ui cnuaren and family
Minnesota Department of Corrections" Kpnna7h~«'^i^7v7.'Z. ~~~. ^9
Murplw Patrick V., commlsJoTOrTNew TOTrStrPorte bVrartm™;"" *^'^«
Isenstadt, Paul, senior field director 0-.0
Sarn, Dr. Rosemary, codirector °}°:
pSenrT ^' •'"^"^"" Court-yudg^sT Hon:-LlnTs;7"GrrrThur: '''
New Orleans (LaO~PoTicrDep;rtmVnTofflciaYs:Fanerof '^0?
Giarrusso, Clarence B., superintendent 1 XS
Kastner, John H., detective __ ^^
Martin, Rinal L., sergeant— _""~ ^
Poissenot, Lloyd J., major _"_ ^^
Woodfork, Warren G., sergeant.." J^I
IVew York City, Criminal Court of : ^^
Goodchild, Lester, executive oflicer ^^^
Ross, Hon. David, administrative iudee }^
New York City Police Department o^ialsfpanlfof J^
Calher, Leroy, patrolman ~ ^'^^
Cawley, Donald F., chief of patrol se"rv"icesI_II_i: -.n i?
FrSmfn A^S?,; ?^V^^ ?'-^ inspector, special operations ^
freeman, Arthur A., deputy inspector.
Garritani. Carl, patrolman. ~"~ ^^
Hubert, Frank, lieutenant, auto crime unit ___ ~__ H
Luhrs, Robert E., deputy inspector _! ~ H
Murphy, Patrick V., commissioner _ V ^
O'Friel, John T., sergeant lllZl
Rogan, John F., deputy inspector ~ „^
Siegel, Joseph, inspector, auxiliary police.! J?
inspector
Mich P
'ment '^''"'"^^ ^' "^"^^"^'^ superintendent, Chicagr dllT Poli^e'Depart"
.27
6
J?3"^^T.'^''5'' ^■-' «<^^~^e'ant7NeVYorrcitrPori"c7^^^ ^^^
Ohlin, Prof. Lloyd E.. director Tn«f,-f,.;l ^„ 7^„.^!^P'l, T"^
pS ^mTE".h,;rl"'°'T"* «neInMt[T6Mo7" pSterS-epaVtmi^r" M?'&'f
i-erers, ii,mil E., chief, San Antonio, Tex. Police DenflrHnAnf ^"i— -^-^Ij^j-
Phi^.^fP.^'"' ?"•' ^^'"" ^P^^t^^' district' at?o™e?_!^'-'™'"' ^^^
"^Sr^^iche^tle'rdgr ^'^^ ^^"^^' ^^^-^ Crim-^s-bMsTon-; Hon: '''
Poissenot. Lloyd J. major. New Orleans; La.7Porrc"e"i)epa7tment q^^^9?
Post, James, patrolman, Kansas City, Mo., Police Department ^r?' J?J
2-Tvf^^^ P- P^*"«l™^°' I^etroit, Mich., Police Dep?rtS ^S' S!
^'S^efp;;^^? ^•' ^•"^^^^' ^^— ^^-« C-rt, M^J^^r^r^i^Vs Dl^IsTon''"' '"'
''Sigan'.^r.'A' Z: •"'•' " '^^-S" Repr;s7nt-ati-v-e-7rom--the"stete-;i '""'
1053
Rogan, John F., deputy insp7cto7 New York'cUy Poric7D7p7rtmenr~"~ 41 R^
New York '"'' ^^^^^^^^^^^-^ j"dge, Crimi/al Court ofThecSty"of ' ''
1006
vn
Page
Rottman, Herbert R., lieutenant, Chicago, 111., Police Department 276, 287
Rowan, Joseph R., executive director, John Howard Association, Chicago,
111 '^^
San Antonio, Tex., Police Department 541
Benfer, Robert A., captain ^°
Fenley, Thomas T.. sergeant ^^
Glenn, Robert, patrolman ^*^
Peters, Emil E., chief ^^
Trevino, Arthur, patrolman T,— ^
Sarri, Dr. Rosemary, codirector. National Assessment of Juvenile Correc-
tions, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich "--— " °^^
Schoen, Kenneth, commissioner, State Department of Corrections, bt. Paul,
SiWerj'osephrinsp"ec'torrAuxiri7r7Po^^^^ New York City Police 'Depart-
ment 7-^~~rjr. T * ' '
Skoler, Daniel L., staff director. Commission on Correctional Facilities and
Ser\'ices, American Bar Association, Washington, D.C ____ 939
Spears, Hon. Adrian, judge. U.S. District Court, Western District, San
Antonio, Tex ;— Q„n
Specter. Arlen, district attorney, Philadelphia, Pa_— --———-— - ^^
Stephens, Darrel W., patrolman, Kansas City, Mo., Police Department- 562, 581
St. Louis, Mo., Police Department '*t^
Armstrong, William, sergeant, laboratory division *^^
Camp, Eugene J., chief of police ^^
Mueller. Charles, sergeant, juvenile division --—- v;."—
Sweeney, Thomas J., task force programs coordinator, Kansas City,
Mo., Police Department ^^
Texas. Harris County, Carol Vance, district attorney—-—-——--—-— -L"'<
Tex., San Antonio, Hon. Adrian Spears, judge, U.S. District Court, Western ^^^^
Tr?vino,''Artirur,"parrormanTsan" Antom^^^^ Police Department- 541, 546
Tucker, Julia, lieutenant. Rape Investigation and Analysis Section, New
York City Police Department -— — ; ::";;V"-
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Pittsburgh, Pa., Hon. Joseph Weis, ^^^^
Jr., judge — -— " 1A77
Vance, Carol, district attorney, Harris County, Tex_ -------------- ^^
Voelker, Anthony M., deputy chief inspector. New York City Police De- ^ ^^
Volunteers i7 ProbaTionrRoFarOak7Mich:,"Ke"ith J. Leenhouts, director- 907
Walker, William D., reporter, WWL-TV, New Orleans, La «&, i^-^
Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Police Department :
Alprin, Geoffrey M., general counsel ^|^
WasMnlton. D.cT Superio? CourtrHonTcharfeT White Halleck, Judge 1143
Weis, Hon. Joseph, Jr.. judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Pitts- ^^^
WiS' Jer^'"v.r"ciriet' wl^s"hin"^Vn7'D.'^^ Metropolitan Police
— . ^. . O^rl
Wol^ Dr^Montro^'M.rprofeVsorrAcMevement" Place Research Project
University of Kansas. Lawrence, Kans _———---- »b», »(u
Woodfork, Warren G., sergeant. New Orieans, La., Police Department- 95, 125
Work, Charies R., Superior Court Division, Office of the U.S. Attorney,
U.S. Department of Justice ^.— -— 7,-— 7— ir-'-T"— ;;.„ JL
Yunger, Frank, president, Findlay Market Association, Cincinnati, Ohio. 247, zao
Material Received for the Record
Alexandria. Va., U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Hon. Albert V.
Byrant, judge, prepared statement -c^ZTl'Tir"
AUen, Milton J., State's attorney for the city of Baltimore, State's Attor-
ney's Office, Baltimore, Md., prepared statement -7-— "~
American Bar Association. Commission on Correctional Facilities and Serv-
ices, Richard J. Hughes, chairman, letter to Chairman Pepper, dated
May 21, 1973, with enclosures --.— ."7 or" T'~r— ^T""
Armstrong. William H.. sergeant. Laboratory Division, St. Loms, Mo.,
Police Department, statement re "The Evidence Technician Unit 44Z
vm
B^timore Md., Milton B. Allen, State'raTto;n;7fo7th;"cTt7ofBartimnr7 ^^^
Bayh^Hof B[?cl''a^n?'.^'"r^7' ^^•' Prepared staSent _!':"'''' i269
statement ' ^^' ^'"^''^" ^"''^ ^^" ^^^^e of Indiana, prepared"
Bryant, Hon. Albert"v:,"3udVe7u;s:"rM7tri7t"co"urt "o7 Ap"^^^^^^^ ^^
RiSfh^T' '^^^''^°^."^' ^^-^ prepared statement.. ^^^^''' ^^'''*^ ,o^
sS^^m^nt"' '^■' '"*"'' '"^'•"^^' ^^^ ^^^1- County,- Calli--prep7;e-d '"''
""par^nat^ement^^^^^ ^o-ty.-YoseFh ^fB^ic^: dTsiriVt-rtto^n^^'F^^^^ '"'
^ Tfov/'i^ n'i v'"^i •^"'^*^^' Harvard L7w-S^h7ol,'crmbrid"ge~Ma"ss" pVof"" ^^^^
CMcaeo /in /'"p.?"'"^^"^ '^^Il"*""' ^^^^^^^^^ statement..!!'.. ' ''^- 691
intendent"-^ ^"'''' Department, Samuel W. Nolan, deputyTuper: ^^'
General Order, re community service aide project o-,,,
Preventive Programs Division Community SeV?ice""iTd"e"s" pVoTe^-t"" q J?
^Report of the Superintendent," dated December 14 T^2 "" oic
p"S '""!."" ^' *'^ ^°^^^ department, "e'^om'^'nTy-s-eTv-iVe-alde '''
^^"yf^;"v ^i"«t«°' <^^ief "india7a7o7r(ind:rporrc7"D;m — ^^
X^ar?^?nt-^rbr=er '^^"^^^^'^^^^ '' ^^^ SE^-police
P?eZrS s'JaleSent! '"^""^*'" ^^ ^-^^-apVus" c7im7-^7r7p7o-g7am-:: Jel
"Teenagers Want To Know . . . Wha7is7h77flw'"7hT;";'i:"T ^^
•SS;«»~i"--3>S5E:: :
Dallas, Tex., Police Department7Ed7in" D~ He7th""f;~"H7,.;;;;" — "-"T ^'^
justice interface division : ^"^^n ^- ±ieath, Jr., director, criminal
''Dallas Repeat Offender Study," report
re analysis of STRESS Nichols, commissioner, report
^ta slSem'^nr'- ^"''"'"^"""^i'^rtmenT,- CoWwrum^e-^^^^^^^ "^
^TuS^ve?sfS.%/rn'S's.Ti^5ji:S™"^^^ '""
^, r?rTcSSS'pTr^S? «-"P H--" (outline, eo5
^\"rprSrsii;.enr^'"""°»'"^"^-^'--'« '*•
Florida, State of, Hon. Eeubin 6'D "^stow" r^;:™;" '90
legislature, re criminal JuZe proposalT' ' '^""^^^ '° '"^ ^""»
•'"aTeSen^^""' ^- ^''-'- ^""^ ''epartmentrmamr riTrj^^Ja-ria '""^
y^^ ?Sa;^prr^ SSI;;"-"^" «^"^'"^'"^"»™-^^^^^^^ '*"
""^et ?0Hj"e g^pl^rt^i';?'"' ^^"'-f>-t]cril,Telircr5ms.-o-n;-6inas: ''"
^'Dallas Repeat Offender Study," report
Operating Procedure," re crtminal'5ustteeT„-t-eS^-dTvTsIo„:::::::: Z
IK
page
Hughes, Richard J., chairman, Commission on Correctional Facilities and
Services, American Bar Association, Washington, D.C., letter to Chair-
man Pepper, dated May 21, 1973, with enclosures 965
Indianapolis (Ind.) Police Department, Winston L. Churchill, chief:
"Fleet Plan : Measuring the Effectiveness of the Indianapolis Police
Department (brochure) I93
"How To Describe a Suspect," re Indianapolis Crime Alert Program.! 165
"Teenagers Want To Know . . . What Is the Law?" (brochure) 171
Prepared statement 16O
Justice, U.S. Department of, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Superior Court
Division, Charles R. Work, chief, prepared statement 1194
Kansas City, Mo., Police Department, Thomas J. Sweeney, task force pro-
grams coordinator:
"Central Patrol Division : Interactive Patrol Project" 612
"Crime Specific Disturbance Intervention : Program Development
Phase" 593
"Sky ALERT" 615
"Sky ALERT II" 616
"Sky ALERT III" 619
"Special Operations Division Task Force" 623
"The Proactive-Reactive Patrol Deployment Project" 602
Kansas (Toi>eka) Department of Social Welfare, Dr. Robert C. Harder,
director, prepared statement 860
Keller, Oliver J., director. State Division of Youth Services, Tallahassee,
Fla., prepared statement 79O
Leenhouts, Keith J., director. Volunteers in Probation, Royal Oak, Mich.,
excerpts from "Concerned Citizens and a City Criminal Court" 919
Leonard, Robert F., prosecuting attorney, Genesee County, Mich., pre-
pared statement 1068
Massachusetts Department of Youth Services, Paul DeMuro, assistant
commi.ssioner of after care, prepared statement 690
Meador, Prof. Daniel J., University of Virginia Law School, Charlottes-
ville, Va., memorandum dated May 2, 1973, re prepared statement 1225
Miami, Fla., Police Department, Bernard L. Garmire, chief, prepared
statement 363
Michigan, Genesee County, Robert F. Leonard, prosecuting attorney, pre-
pared statement 1068
Minneapolis, Minn., District Court, Juvenile Division, Hon. Lindsay G.
Arthur, judge, prepared statement 762
Moylan, Hon. Charles E., Jr., associate judge, State Court of Special
Appeals, Baltimore, Md., excerpts from recent opinion, re waiver of jury
trials , 1274
National Assessment of Juvenile Corrections, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Mich., Dr. Rosemary Sarri. codirector, "Sampling Plans and
Results" (excerpt) 845
National Council of Juvenile Court Judges, Hon. Lindsay G. Arthur, presi-
dent, prepared statement 762
New York City, Criminal Court of, Hon. David Ross, administrative judge :
"Annual Report of the Criminal Court of the City of New York,"
excerpt 1025
"Nine-Month Report of the Criminal Court of the City of New York,"
excerpt 1024
Press release dated Apr. 22, 1973, re impact of administrative improve-
ments instituted by Judge Ross for the period January 1971 through
June 1972 1034
Nichols, John F., commissioner, Detroit, Mich., Police Department, report
re analysis of STRESS 417
Nolan, Samuel W., deputy superintendent, Chicago (111.) Police Depart-
ment :
General Order, re community service aide project 310
"Preventive Programs Division Community Service Aides Project" 315
"Report of the Superintendent," dated December 14, 1972 308
Training bulletin of the police department, re community service aide
project 312
Page
Ohlin, Prof. Lloyd E., research director, Center for Criminal Justice,
Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass., prepared statement 691
Pepper, Hon. Claude, chairman, Select Committee on Crime, U.S. House of
Representatives, press release dated March 28, 1973, from Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, re decline in serious
crime in U.S. cities 3
Peters, Emil E., chief, San Antonio, Tex., Police Department, report on
cases handled by crime task force, 1970-73 553
Philadelphia, Pa., Arlen Specter, district attorney, prepared statement,
with attachment 997 •
Pittsburgh, Pa., U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Hon. Joseph Weis,
Jr., judge, prepared statement 1138
Kailsback. Hon. Tom, a U.S. Representative from the State of Illinois 323
Ross, Hon. David, administrative judge, Criminal Court of the City of
New York :
"Annual Report of the Criminal Court of the City of New York,"
excerpt 1025
"Nine-Month Report of the Criminal Court of the City of New York,"
excerpt 1024
Press release dated Apr. 22, 1973, re impact of administrative improve-
ments instituted by Judge Ross for the period January 1971 through
June 1972 1034
San Antonio, Tex., Police Department, Emil E. Peters, chief, report on
cases handled by crime task force, 1970-73 553
Sarri, Dr. Rosemary, codirector. National Assessment of Juvenile Correc-
tions, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., "Sampling Plans and
Results" (excerpt) 845
Specter, Arlen, district attorney, Philadelphia, Pa., prepared statement,
with attachment 997
St. Louis, Mo., Police Department, William H. Armstrong, sergeant, labo-
ratory division, statement re "The Evidence Technician Unit" 442
Sweeney, Thomas J., task force programs coordinator, Kansas City, Mo.,
Police Department :
"Central Patrol Division : Interactive Patrol Project" 612
"Crime Specific Disturbance Intervention: Program Development
Phase" 593
"Sky ALERT" 615
"Skv ALERT II" 616
"Sky ALERT III" 619
"Special Operations Division Task Force" 623
"The Proactive-Reactive Patrol Deployment Project" 602
Texas, Harris County, Carol S. Vance, district attorney, prepared state-
ment 1114
University of Kansas (Lawrehce, Kans.), Achievement Place Research
Project, Dr. Dean Fixsen, research associate :
"Community-Based Family-Style Group Homes" (outline) 905
"The Achievement Place Model" 890
Vance, Carol S., district attorney, Harris County, Tex., prepared state-
ment 1114
Volunteers in Probation, Royal Oak, Mich., Keith J. Leenhouts, director,
excerpts from "Concerned Citizens and a City Criminal Court" 919
Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department, Jerry V. Wilson, Chief
of Police, letter dated May 3, 1973, re LEAA grants awarded to police
department 362
Wilson, Jerry V., Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department, Wash-
ington, D.C., letter dated May 3, 1973, re LEAA grants awarded to the
police department 362
Weis, Hon. Joseph Jr., judge, U.S. District Court of Appeals, Third Cir-
cuit, Pittsburgh, Pa., prepared statement 1138
Work, Charles R., chief, Superior Court Division, OflSce of the U.S.
Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, prepared statement 1194
STREET CRIME IN AMERICA
(The Police Response)
MONDAY, APRIL 9, 1973
House of R.epresentative8,
Select Committee on Crime,
Washington, D.O.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 311,
Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Claude Pepper (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Representatives Pepper, Waldie, Brasco, Mann, Murphy,
Rangel, Wiggins, Steiger, Winn, Sandman, and Keating.
Also present: Chris Nolde, chief counsel; Richard Lynch, deputy
chief counsel ; and Leroy Bedell, hearings officer.
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order.
The first business on the agenda of the committee is to adopt the
rules covering the committee in its operation during this Congress.
Do I hear any motion relative to that subject ?
Mr. Mann. Mr. Chairman ?
Chairman Pepper. The gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. Mann. It is my judgment that the rules under which we func-
tioned during the previous Congress were adequate and fair. I move
the adoption of the same rules effective in the 92d Congress for the 93d
Congress.
Mr. MunPHT. I second the motion.
Chairman Pepper. It has been moved and seconded that we adopt the
same rules that prevailed for the committee during the previous Con-
gress. Any further discussion or further motions to be made?
Are you ready for the questions ?
Mr. Steiger. Question.
Chairman Pepper. All that favor the motion made by Mr. Mann,
seconded by Mr. Murphy, say "aye.''
[Chorus of "aye."]
Chairman Pepper. All opposed, "no."
[No response.]
Chairman Pepper. The rules are unanimously adopted, with seven
members of the committee present.
I would like to make a brief opening statement, if I may, before
the first of the distinguished witnesses is introduced.
Today the Select Committee on Crime opens its inquiry into street
crime in America. In part, this will be a success story, for a funda-
mental purpose of these hearings is to bring to congressional and
public attention those criminal justice programs which have shown
promise as crime reduction agents.
During this first week, the theme of our hearings will be "Street
Crime — the Street Level Response" and 13 major police departments
(1)
will present testimony about a wide variety of police programs and
policies which are being used to combat street crime.
Street crime is still a fact of life in America, and its presence is
especially ominous in our Nation's urban centers.
If I may do so, without objection, I would like to introduce for the
record, to appear in the record at the conclusion of our opening state-
ment, the announcement of the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, of March 28, 1973, relative to the latest
summary of statistics on crime in the United States.
On March 28, 1973, the Department of Justice announced that
there had been a decline in serious crime of 3 percent in 1972, "the
first actual crime decrease in 17 years." On January 30, 1973, Senator
John Stennis was robbed and shot in front of his home here in the
District of Columbia; on March 30, 1973, former Congressman and
Mrs. Brooks Hays were robbed within a few blocks of the Capitol.
Senator Stennis, I am delighted to report, is making a good recovery.
These prominent public figures took their place in a long line of
street crime victims. In 1972— according to preliminary data — 7,751
robberies were reported in the District of Columbia ; 714 persons were
victims of rape; 3,897 were victims of aggravated assaults, and 245
more people were murdered.
These crimes — with the exception of rape — occurred less frequently
than in 1971, but the incidence is still unacceptably high. Washing-
ton, D.C., is by no means alone in this regard. While index crimes —
murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny over
$50, and auto theft — decreased, it is worth noting that the violent
crimes — murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault — actually in-
creased by 1 percent. In fact, the FBI's preliminary 1972 data indi-
cates that violent crime was up from 2 to 13 percent in suburban and
rural areas, and in cities with populations of 500,000 or less.
None of us can take comfort from the fact that violent crime is
still increasing. Notwithstanding the fact that overall index crime
frequencies are decreasing, people are still falling prey to robbers,
muggers, rapists, and murderers. This we cannot accept.
This committee would be remiss in its obligations if it did not
review the present nature and extent of street crime. We launch this
hearing with the firm hope and expectation that the many police,
prosecution, court, and correctional programs which are to be de-
scribed by expert witnesses during the next several weeks will provide
eloquent testimony of imaginative criminal justice efforts which have
reduced crime in some of our cities and made them safer places in
which to live. We hope these examples will be an inspiration and a
challenge to many other law enforcement authorities in our country.
Recent polls indicate that crime remains of overriding national
concern. Crime and the fear of crime continue to plague us as a
people. We are by no means out of the crime crisis: Brutality and
barbarism still rule the streets and sidewalks in urban high-crime
areas. Violence and depravity still harm the most those who are the
least able to defend themselves.
A young man who runs an elevator here in the Capitol, who is
crippled, has been mugged, I believe seven times, in the recent past.
Street crime is by no stretch of the imagination the only kind of
crime we need be concerned about. It is, however, the most visible
kind of crime. Its victims end up in hospitals or morgues ; those who
survive often carry psychic scars. As long as crime of this type preys
upon us, we are not a free people. Our fundamental freedom is in
jeopardy, and liberty has a hollow ring when people are afraid to
walk in their own neighborhoods.
Street crime cannot be eliminated until we can finally summon the
resolve to eliminate its contributing causes, among which are poverty,
unemployment, ignorance or lack of skills for employment, and that
multitude of social ills which afflicts all of our Nation's population
centers. We cannot ignore the need to get on with the business of
attacking the root causes of crime, as well as crime itself.
While the need to attack the root causes of crime is irrefutable,
we also need to pay increasing attention to the short-term task of
removing from the streets those offenders who are disrupting the
fabric of our society.
It is this latter facet to which we will address ourselves during
the next several weeks. Testimony will be taken from those agencies
which are now engaged in the tasks of apprehending, prosecuting,
adjudicating, and confining those among us who have chosen to follow
paths of lawlessness and violence.
We need to arrest, prosecute, try, and — where necessary — confine
those offenders who create havoc and fear. We need to do so in an
expeditious, zealous manner. For the most part, the programs which
we will be examining will show that we can attack — and hopefully
defeat — street crime in a lawful way. This goal can be achieved with-
out pity for the criminal act, with a decent respect for the violated
rights of victims, and with a zealous regard for the constitutional
rights of all concerned, both offenders and victims.
These hearings will demonstrate that many thoughtful and dedi-
cated law enforcement officials are bringing leadership and imagina-
tion to bear in their efforts to reduce street crime and its carnage.
We warmly commend all those who have been responsible for the
innovative law enforcement programs which will be presented in
these hearings, and, as I have said, we hope that they will be an
inspiration and challenge to other law enforcement officials in this
country. Nevertheless, the purpose of these hearings is to find out
what can be done in the future to further reduce crime in this country,
and make the streets, homes, work and recreational places of our
citizens safer for them.
[A cop;7 of the March 28, 1973, statistics from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, referred to previously, follows :]
United States Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, B.C., March 28, 1913.
Serious crime in the United States declined 3 percent in 1972. the first actual
decrease in crime in 17 years, Attorney General Richard G. Kleindienst announced
today.
The downturn in the volume of crime was disclosed in preliminary year-end
statistics tabulated by the FBI and released today.
"This is a day that we have been looking forward to for many years," the At-
torney General said. "It is an important milestone in the fight to reduce crime
and is directly attributable to the strong efforts of law enforcement officers
throughout the nation to turn back the wave of crime that rolled upward in the
1960's.'
During 1972, 94 major cities reported actual decreases in serious crime, Mr.
Kleindienst said, compared witti 53 cities in 1971, 22 cities in 1970, and 17 cities
in 1969.
Nationally, serious crime declined 8 percent in the final quarter of the year,
after registering a 1 percent increase through the first nine months of 1972.
The last measurable decrease in serious crime — 2 percent — was recorded in
1955, according to FBI crime records.
The crime spiral peaked in 1968 when serious crime rose 17 percent above the
previous year. In 1969 and 1970, serious crime increased 11 percent, while in
1971, the increase was 6 percent.
"We enter this new period with an acute awareness that crime is still un-
acceptably high," Mr. Kleindienst said. "We pledge to renew our determination
and efforts to make our communities safer places in which to live."
The preliminary figures are contained in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports,
a collection of nationwide police statistics supplied voluntarily by local, county,
and state law enforcement agencies. The figures were released today by FBI
Acting Director L. Patrick Gray, III.
Violent crime increased by 1 percent in 1972, compared with a 9 percent in-
crease the year before. Robberies, however, which make up the largest number
of crimes in the violent category, showed a 4 percent decrease in 1972. Murder
was up 4 percent in 1972, aggravated assault increased 6 percent, and forcible
rape increased 11 percent over the previous year.
Property crime decreased 3 percent, compared with a 6 percent increase in
1971. Auto theft declined 7 percent, larceny $50 and over dropped 3 percent, and
burglary was down 2 percent.
Cities over 100,000 population reported an average decrease of 7 i)ercent in the
volume of Crime Index offenses. Crime in suburban areas increased 2 percent,
compared to an 11 percent increase in 1971, while crime in rural areas went up
4 percent compared to a 6 percent rise in the previous reporting period.
Serious crime in Washington, D.C., continued to decline. The 1972 decrease
was 26.9 percent, compared with the 1971 decrease of 13 percent.
The nation's capital registered fewer crimes in every category, except for a
16 percent increase in rape. Auto theft decreased 33 percent, burglary decreased
32 percent, robbery decreased 31 percent, lai-ceny $50 and over decreased 18
percent, murder decreased 11 percent, and aggravated assault decreased 2 percent.
A copy of the preliminary crime figures for 1972 is attached. Final crime
figures and crime rates per unit of population will be available in the detailed
Uniform Crime Reports scheduled for release this summer.
Also attached is a list of the 94 major cities reporting crime decreases.
Cities With Decrease in Crime Index
january-december
1972 VERSUS 1971
Index percent
(decrease)
Akron, Ohio 9.5
Albany, N.Y 23. 8
Alexandria, Va 2. 1
AUentown, Pa 15. 4
Arlington, Va 15.4
Austin, Tex 3. 7
Baltimore, Md 6. 5
Beaumont. Tex 1. 6
Berkeley, Calif 2.7
Boston, Mass 8. 8
Bridgeport, Conn 14. 6
Buffalo, N.Y 6. 7
Cambridge, Mass 7. 7
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 3. 8
Charlotte, N.C 11. 8
Chicago, 111 4.1
Cincinnati, Ohio 5. 0
Cleveland, Ohio 11.3
Columbia, S.C 16.6
Columbus, Ga 3. 0
Columbus. Ohio 9. 5
Corpus Christi, Tex . 8
Dallas. Tex 2.6
Dearborn, Mich 8. 8
Des Moines. Iowa 9. 1
Detroit, Mich 15. 8
Duluth, Minn 6. 8
Elizabeth, N.J 4.2
El Paso. Tex 16. 5
Erie, Pa .1
Evansville, Ind 13.4
Fall River, Mass 14.2
Fort Lauderdale, Fla 4.2
Fort Worth, Tex 5. 6
Gary, Ind 3.7
Glendale, Calif 5.8
Hammond, Ind 2.3
Hampton, Va 6.9
Hartford, Conn 19. 8
Hialeah, Fla 8. 2
Hollywood, Fla 7.5
Honolulu, Hawaii 15.3
Huntsville, Ala 19.9
Indianapolis, Ind 16. 0
Jacksonville, Fla 4.9
Jersey City, N.J 8.3
Kansas City, Mo 13. 2
Index percent
(decrease)
Lansing, Mich 6. 3
Lexington, Ky 6. 5
Los Angeles, Calif 3. 8
Louisville, Ky 11.3
Lubbock, Tex 11. 0
Macon, Ga 3. 1
Miami, Fla 9.9
Milwaukee, Wis 3. 9
Mobile, Ala 15.2
Montgomery, Ala 3. 2
Nashville, Tenn 18. 0
Newark, N.J 10. 2
New Bedford, Mass 20.3
New Haven, Conn 9. 7
New Orleans, La 15. 2
New York, N.Y 18.0
Norfolk, Va 18.1
Oakland, Calif 3.4
Orlando, Fla 10.7
Parma, Ohio 9. 7
Pasadena, Calif 1. 6
Philadelphia, Pa 4. 5
Pittsburgh, Pa 11. 0
Portsmouth, Va 2.0
Providence, R.I 13. 5
Raleigh, N.C 5.0
Richmond, Va 11.9
Rochester, N.Y 8.6
St. Louis, Mo 4. 1
Salt Lake City, Utah 10. 0
San Francisco, Calif 19.0
Savannah, Ga 13. 8
Scranton, Pa 27.0
Seattle, Wash 3.8
Shreveport, La 8.4
Spokane, Wash 2.3
Stamford, Conn 27. 6
Syracuse, N.Y 11. 2
Topeka, Kans 15. 2
Torrance, Calif 5. 2
Trenton, N.J 7.7
Warren, Mich 2. 8
Washington, D.C 26. 9
Waterbury, Conn 7. 7
Wichita, Kans . 7
Yonkers, N.Y 11.7
Youngstown, Ohio 11. 9
6
Chairman Pepper. I feel it would be only proper to express a word
of thanks and welcome to the National Public Affairs Center for Tele-
vision, for the television coverage offered. They will be filming several
days of these hearings for inclusion in a documentary on street crimes.
It will be entitled "America 1973 — Documentary," and it will be aired
on 226 education television stations during the week of April 16.
The airing by public television in the District of Columbia will be
at 8 p.m. on April 18.
I will now ask my colleague, Mr. Rangel, the distinguished gentle-
man from New York, to introduce the Honorable Patrick V. Murphy,
New York's police commissioner.
Mr. Rangel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this com-
mittee. I have the pleasure and honor to introduce one of the most out-
standing, dedicated public servants we have in the United States, Com-
missioner Patrick Murphy, a career policeman who has served as chief
of police in the cities of Detroit, the District of Columbia, Syracuse,
and now the city of New York.
Commissioner Murphy was appointed by President Johnson as the
first Administrator of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administra-
tion in the Department of Justice. He holds both B.A. and M.A. de-
grees and is a graduate of the FBI National Law Enforcement Acad-
emy. He served as an officer in the Navy in World War II and is the
parent of eight children.
Commissioner Murphy has made a distinguished contribution to the
discovery of and attack on corruption within the New York City Police
Department. He did this with the type of courage that is unparalleled
in the history of law enforcement in the State and city of New York.
It affords me a great pleasure to join with him in presenting to this
committee information on present law enforcement efforts in the city
of New York.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Chairman Pepper. Commissioner, I, as chairman, and all of the other
members of the committee wish to concur in extending the welcome ex-
tended to you by our distinguished member, Mr. Rangel. We are very
grateful to you for coming to help us this morning. We all know of the
contributions you make in the many parts of the practice of law en-
forcement and the reduction of crime. We look forward to hearing
what you have to say today.
You may proceed with your statement.
PANEL OF NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICIALS:
MURPHY, PATRICK V., COMMISSIONER;
CAWLEY, DONALD F., CHIEF OF PATROL SERVICES;
VOELKER, ANTHONY M., DEPUTY CHIEF INSPECTOR;
TUCKER, JULIA, LIEUTENANT, RAPE INVESTIGATION AND
ANALYSIS SECTION;
HUBERT, FRANK, LIEUTENANT, AUTO CRIME UNIT;
O'FRIEL, JOHN T., SERGEANT;
GARRITANI, CARL, PATROLMAN; AND
CALLIER, LEROY, PATROLMAN
Statement of Commissioner Murphy
Commissioner Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Con-
gressman Rangel, and members of "the committee.
I am grateful indeed for the opportunity to appear before this dis-
tinguished committee to describe some of the programs developed by
the New York City Police Department to reduce crime during my
tenure as commissioner.
Mr. Chairman, I would like, with your indulgence, to make just a
very few brief remarks in order to give the members of the committee
every opportunity to ask questions.
There was a significant decline in major crime in New York (^ity
last year of approximately 8 percent. Compared with other large
cities, and the country as a whole, we did relatively well. But consider-
ing the thousands of victims, it would be a delusion to think that we
have achieved a tolerable level of safety on the streets of New York
When I was appointed police commissioner 21/2 years ago, I found
a number of problems facing me. One very serious problem which
could not be kept in other than first place on the list of priorities,
the one alluded to by Congressman Rangel, was the problem of cor-
ruption, which we have attempted to address in a straightforward
manner. But when Mayor Lindsay, John B. Lindsay, the distinguished
mayor of New York, interviewed me concerning my willingness to
accept the position of police commissioner in New York City, we
had a lengthy discussion about the proper role for the police com-
missioner and the kind of independence and freedom he should have.
Politics and law enforcement cannot be mixed if honest, effective
law enforcement is to occur. The late J. Edgar Hoover proclaimed
that principle many years ago. And although on occasion I disagreed
with Mr. Hoover's thinking on some -matters, his foresight and deter-
mination in this regard, as well as many others, have made a great
contribution to American law enforcement.
Mayor Lindsay assured me, before I agreed to accept his appoint-
ment, that I would function independently and that the police de-
partment during my term under him as mayor would be free from
political interference. We have had that independence and that free-
dom from interference and I think it is a factor which cannot be
ignored in discussing the ability of a police department in a great
city to address the difficult and complex problem of crime.
Among the problems I identified early in my term was a quality
of management that called for upgrading. Among the things we have
been able to do in the department, in addition to selecting a new
leadership team down through the second and third echelons, was
our ability to bring in ci\dlian professionals of a variety of back-
grounds— attorneys, engineers, systems managers, personnel dii'ectors,
training specialists, and others. They all made an important con-
tribution, in my opinion, to improve 'management in the New York
City Police Department.
We identified the problem of low productivity and we have been
hard at work on that problem to attempt to make more effective use
of our resources. The principal resources of any municipal police
department are personnel. We found our personnel not being used as
effectively as possible.
One of the major changes accomplished in the past 2 years has been
a significant shift of manpower from the hours after midnight, and
especially after 1 or 2 a.m., when the calls for police service and the
incidents of crime drop dramatically, and a shifting of that manpower
to the hours before midnight. Approximately 50 percent of the man-
95-158 O— 73— pt. 1 2
8
power on duty during a 24-hour period in New York City today is on
duty during the high-crime period of approximately 4 p.m. to mid-
night.
We also believed that the use of uniformed police officers, though
very important to provide the visibility and the presence that is reas-
suring to the citizens, and which acts as a deterrent to the criminal,
was not perhaps the most effective way to use all police officers, even
though assigned in the individual precincts. So very early we author-
ized precinct commanders, under a program of increased authority
for commanders at the operating level, to assign up to 5 percent of
their manpower in civilian clothes, to work we described as "anticrime
street work.''
Since that time, each precinct commander has had his authority in-
creased to 10 percent.
Some time thereafter, under the distinguished leadership of the
chief of patrol, Donald Cawley, who is with me on my right this
morning, we established the citywide anticrime section, which is now
headed by Deputy Chief Inspector Anthony M. Voelker, on my left.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to be able to tell you — you knew him
as Inspector Voelker, and last Friday I had the privilege to advance
him to the rank of deputy chief, in recognition of his distinguished
leadership potential, and the great contribution of his citywide anti-
crime section to the modest reduction in street crime we experienced
in 1972.
This anticrime patrol functions in plain clothes. They are deployed
within the individual precincts and throughout the city, in accordance
with a very careful day-to-day analysis of the occurrence of street
crime by hour of day, by type of crime, and by location.
As you will learn during today's meeting, the officers assigned, both
male and female officers, are usually in a disguise of one kind or an-
other. It is the function of the dedicated men and women of the unit
to blend into the scenery, so to speak, wherever they are functioning,
and you will hear later about some of the successes they have
experienced.
We saw a need for greater citizen support and so we hope to have
an opportunity later to talk with you about our neighborhood police
team concept and how it involves the citizens much more actively in
understanding, supporting, and working with and assisting police
officers.
We would like to say a little bit during the day about our auxiliary
police and the significant increase in enrollment in the auxiliary
police program that we have experienced, especially in the minority
communities of the city, where, because we do not have enough police
officers or enough Hispanic police officers, it is a significant advantage
to have more men and women in those communities in the police uni-
form, as auxiliaries, volunteers, who give some number of hours a
week of their time and increase the police presence. They are unarmed,
but they are equipped with walkie-talkie radios; they are very familiar
with the neighborhoods and, of course, they are providing an increased
protection for their own neighborhoods, which I think is significant
because police officers in our city do not live in the precincts in which
they work. As a matter of fact, for many years it has been a policy
of not permittmg officers to work in the neighborhoods where they
9
live, although currently we are experimenting with the concept of
resident police officer.
In addition to the auxiliaries, we have established some other pro-
grams for citizen volunteers, a block-watcher program, and recently
Mayor Lindsay announced a $5 million appropriation from the capital
budget to encourage the citizens organized in block clubs and other
kinds of neighborhood groups to, with Government support, contribute
their own funds to the purchase of security equipment of one kind or
another.
Less than 1 percent of the budget of the New York City Police
Department since the creation of the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration has come to us through Federal grants. We have been
happy to cooperate with the policies of the criminal justice coordinat-
ing council of Mayor Lindsay, in seeing to it that the funds have been
used where most needed. And in New York City, and I believe in
many cities, the greatest need today is in the courts and in corrections.
This may seem a strange position for a police commissioner to take,
but because I live day after day with the frustrations of our 30,000
officers, I know of nothing that frustrates them more than the delay
in courts, than the dismissals in courts, than the lack of convictions
and lack of sentences.
So to be realistic about addressing the problem of crime, I think
we must face the fact that an adequate backup system is required for
a police department. The prosecuting officers and the courts must be
able to do their jobs, they must not be so overwhelmed by workload
that they begin to break down in the fulfillment of their function. And
certainly this distinguished committee is well aware of the failures of
our corrections system in State after State in this country.
In New York State, we experienced the terrible tragedy of Attica.
All of us are saddened that such a tragedy had to occur before we, our
communities, have begun to understand the great need for improve-
ment, modernization, and upgrading of the corrections systems of the
Nation.
Almost invariably, the first reaction of the public when confronted
by a law enforcement crisis is to seek to increase the size of the police
force which it sees as its first line of defense. It has not been generally
recognized that more police activity cannot be truly effective when
other parts of the system suffer from lack of resources, manpower, and
facilities, or are unable to adequately fulfill their purpose for what-
ever reason.
To make police work more credible, more resources must be made
available to prosecutors, courts, and corrections systems, and our
attention must be directed toward improving the whole criminal
justice system so that it will function as a system.
I have already introduced Chief Cawley, who is with me, and Chief
Voelker. Also, Lt. Frank Hubert of our auto crime unit of the city-
wide anticrime section is with us; Sgt. John O'Friel of the office of
programs and policies, who has responsibility for processing Federal
and other grants ; and a number of other members of the New York
City Police Department will be here through the day and they will be
introduced to you at the appropriate time.
Mr. Chairman, we are ready to respond to whatever questions the
committee might have for us.
10
Chairman Pepper. We thank you very much, Commissioner, for the
very able statement that you made.
I will now call on our deputy chief counsel, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch, would you care to address some questions to Commis-
sioner Murphy ?
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner, I wonder if you could tell us, to begin with, why the
citywide anticrime section was created, how it operates, and what, in
your judgment, its success rate has been during the past year or so in
which it has been operating ?
Commissioner Murphy. With your indulgence, I would like Chief
Cawley, who really is the initiator of this program, to respond to that
question. And I am sure Chief Voelker will have something to add.
Statement of Donald F. Cawley
Mr. Cawley. In November of 1971, shortly after my assuming the
position of chief of patrol, there was a unit working for my office
entitled "The Taxi and Truck Surveillance Unit" consisting of ap-
proximately 80 men. They were primarily dedicated to dealing with
taxi and truck robberies. In looking at the larger issue and the larger
problem of street crime, and robbery in particular, I thought the
matter through, came to a conclusion, what we really should be think-
ing about was supplementing the increased anticrime civilian patrol-
man working at the precinct level to approximately 200 men, and
selecting the proper commander, the proper leader, have him pull to-
gether a strong team of supervisors and create a unit that would deal
exclusively with the street crime problems.
As that lead, I selected Chief Voelker, at that time a captain, and I
would suggest that perhaps if Chief Voelker gave the committee a
brief presentation, which we have available, it might answer some of
your questions.
I would be very happy to respond to the specifics.
Mr. Lynch. Chief Voelker, could you do that for us, please?
Statement of Anthony M. Voelker
Mr. Voelker. Yes, sir. At the time I was given the opportunity to
organize the citywide anticrime section, I was given complete and
total freedom as to selecting of personnel, laying down the ground
rules and guidelines, deciding on what tactics would make the most
sense in this kind of a police operation.
Each superior officer was handpicked, as was each man. When we
structured the unit, I think we were aware in advance of the necessity
of striking a careful balance between policemen who are interested
and enthusiastic enough to catch the street criminal in the act of com-
mitting a street crime, while at the same time being greatly concerned
of the rights of the individual citizen and being concerned not to
encroach upon those rights.
For that reason, in order to increase the complement of that unit
from 80 to 200, we conducted some 600 interviews of patrolmen who
were all highly recommended. They received a full week's training
before we felt we were fully operational and then we went about the
business of attempting to outwit the street criminal in his own baili-
11
wick, a task which I think is very difficult. It is very dangerous. It is
very challenging, but I, as well as the men, find it probably the most
meaningful kind of police work there is.
What we have attempted to do is make the police officer relatively in-
visible. We gave him the option to modify his appearance in whatever
way he would. He uses what might be termed "props." In the past, we
have used such things as wheelchairs, canes, crutches, bicycles, women's
wigs, workmen's hard hats, toolboxes, surveyor's transit, a tie sales-
man's cardboard box, a peddler's cart, in order to make our policemen
relatively invisible.
We have him focus his efforts and attention on street crime. "Street
crimes", by my definition, being crimes of violence that occur on the
city streets, crimes which cause concern and inconvenience to users of
the city streets. The men are not assigned on a random basis, but are
assigned on the basis of a statistical overview of crime.
This is done both at the central unit and at the precinct level. We
are interested in where crime is occurring, during what time brackets,
what the violation may be, what the modus operandi of the criminal is,
and possibly the description of the teams of assailants, if that is avail-
able.
The tactics have been devised generally by the officers themselves. I
feel we have given them great tactical flexibilities so they can do what
they think makes sense, as police officers.
Two of the basic tactics are — the first being what has probably be-
come the most favorite word in our vocabulary — is "blending." The
officer attempts to blend into the street scene wherever he may be as-
signed. If he is in a downtown business district, he will have on a busi-
ness suit and carry an attache case and look like one of many others
moving along the street.
If he is in another neighborhood, he may be a truckdriver, cabdriver,
a hippie, a student, a doctor, a nurse. He can assume any of these roles.
That enters into the other facet of the operation which is the decoys.
The anticrime men always blend and sometimes decoy. "Decoy," in my
mind, is replacing the victim the street criminal thinks he may find
when he strikes out. He intends to find someone who is, as the chair-
man has said, possibly infirmed. He looks for the aged ; he looks for
someone who will be a poor witness. He looks for someone who is going
to be reluctant to go to court.
"WHiat we do is take that person from the location where the crime
is most likely to occur and substitute a police officer, a well-trained,
physically fit, armed police officer, backed up by several others. That is
what the decoy operation is, in my mind.
Mr. Lynch. In that regard, Chief Voelker, this unit and units like
it in other cities, do perform decoy operations. Do you have a substan-
tial number of defendants who claim in court, and claim successfully,
that they have been victims of entrapment as a result of the decoy
operation ?
Mr. Voelker. I never heard the question raised, other than academi-
cally, when we get into a discussion on decoy. When I give you an ex-
ample of the effectiveness of the unit, of the robberv arrests made in
1972, of those cases disposed of to date, 90 percent have resulted in
conviction. Many of those convictions — excuse me, have resulted in
imprisonment. I have not heard any defendant raise the question
of entrapment.
12
Mr. Lynch. In regard to the success rate, I understand you have
some statistics here. Would you be good enough to go over them ?
Mr. VoELKER. Yes, I do. I would be happy to.
I think I would first like to show you what the anticrime investment
is in the city of New York. Throughout the city's 72 precincts, there
are approximately 800 men assigned to anticrime. Added to the 200
men at the central unit, we are speaking of a 1,000-man investment,
which in a department the size of New York's represents slightly less
than 31/^ percent.
Mr. Rangel. Chief, approximately what percentage of that 1,000
total is on duty at any given time ?
Mr. VoELKER. Somewhere between 50 and 60 percent during evening
hours, because the duty charts are structured to strongly favor the
evening hours, the hours of the highest incidence of crime.
Mr. Rangel. In reference to the 8- or 10- or 12-hour shifts, and vaca-
tion and sick time, notwithstanding the fact that you lean toward the
hours where you have the highest criminal activity, I was wondering
whether or not we should expect a drastic reduction in the 1,000-man
figure that you use for the anticrime manpower, as we expect to find
when you talk about your general police statistics, on duty at any
given time.
Mr. VoELKER. I would say the figure is comparable. I would say
between 50 and 55 percent would be on duty.
Mr. Rangel. You would say between 6 p.m. and 2 a.m., that we
should believe 500 anticrime officers are actively on duty ?
Mr. VoELKER. As an educated guess, sir. It might he less, but that
would be my educated guess.
Mr. Rangel. We couldn't guess like that if we were talking about
the number of people assigned to a precinct. I don't know what the
figure is, but it certainly would be nowhere near 50 percent.
Mr. Voelker. No, the coverage is different. I can give you an ex-
ample. The men at citywide have 6-day duty charts. The 2 last days
being days, also, and the first 3 days being evenings. So half of their
duty day is evening. So we subtract some of that for the court time and
we might be in the vicinity of 40 percent would be on patrol.
Mr. Murphy. Chief, may I interrupt? You say 72 precincts. You
have 800 men in there and that is a little over 8 a precinct ; right ?
Mr. Voelker. It varies, sir. It is quite a spread between what one
police precinct considered "quiet" may feel is an anticrime team and
what the "high-experienced" precinct might feel.
Commissioner Murphy, Ten or eleven : 72 into 800.
Mr. Murphy. How many people would you say comprised a precinct
in New York, total population living in the precinct?
Commissioner Murphy. Population per precinct is 110,000 or 120,000
on the average. But there is a wide range there from as low as 30,000
to close to 200,000.
Mr. Voelker. I think when we are talking in terms of the size of
the investment, that some of the next statistics may shed some light
on that. Because we are now talking about officers who do not have
the broad range of responsibilities that all policemen have. They
don't have to answer the calls for the disorderly boys, or barking
dogs, or family disputes, or minor accidents, or injuries. These offi-
13
cers are involved in what I consider in my mind, pure, distilled, anti-
street-crime work.
Mr. Cawlet. If 1 may, just for a moment, I am sure we will touch
on this later, but the 800 men assi^ied to the precinct level, consistent
with the decentralization of authority concept Mr. Murphy put in
when he first came aboard, the precinct commander makes a lot of the
judgments as to how he will use his people and when he will use them.
So there is a wide variety of ways in which the precinct commander
will assign the percentage that he selects to put into this type work.
Mr. VoELKER. I think this chart here [indicating] will give you
some indication of what the anticrime forces which are doing only
anticrime work are able to do.
In the four crime categories, which I think we would agree are the
heart of \aolent street crime, they have effected the percent of arrest
indicated here, this being the percent of all arrest effected by the entire
department. It averages in around some 22 percent and they are re-
sponsible for 23 percent of all arrests in these four crime categories, as
well as 22 percent of all felonies and 16 percent of all arrests effected
in the city.
Mr. Lynch. Chief, you indicated they had a high rate of convic-
tion for felony arrests. Of the 750 robbery arrests made by city wide
anticrime patrolmen, how many were in fact sent to court during 1972 ?
Do you have any idea ?
Mr. VoELKER. I am sorry, I don't have figures for other than the
central unit.
Mr. Lynch. Could you supply those figures to us later? Could you
send those to us?
Mr. VoELKER. Yes, sir. I will make every attempt to.
[The information referred to, had not been received at time of print-
ing.l
Chairman Pepper. Would your same percentage of arrest apply to
murder, rape, and aggravated assault ?
Mr. VoELKER. I don't think so, sir. These, I feel, are the crimes that
the anticrime has focus upon. These are the stranger-to-stranger
crimes. The crime categories you mentioned, sir, I don't believe these
are in the category of stranger to stranger, although they well may be.
The next page on the chart is just an indication of what happened
to these same crime categories during 1972. Since there were many
programs in effect in the department, I make no correlation, other
than to show in those crime categories that there was a reduction of
crime.
Mr. Rangel. Chief, arrest statistics are really just one indication of
the effectiveness of the squad. You have to agree, every year, less and
less people are complaining about crime being committed, for other
reasons.
Mr. VoELKER. I don't know. In my own mind. I think the number of
complaints is reflective of the total number of crimes, although they
may not be the same numerically. I think if you see a decrease in re-
ported crimes, we are talking about a decrease in actual crimes.
Mr. Rangel. I think if you would check with the members of the
police force — and there are a large number that go to the community
meetings — you will find more and more people believe it is less and
less important to report crimes committed against them. Given this
14
factor, which really has not been assured, I hate for you to stress the
good work of your division based on the number of complaints
received.
Mr. VoELKER. No ; I don't intend to. I would like to show you some
other factors which I consider more important.
Commissioner Murphy. Congressman, I can't let this go by. I think
since we are talking about crime statistics, maybe we ought to put some
facts on the table. I believe crime reporting in New York City today
is the most honest, accurate, crime reporting New York City has ever
had.
I admit that crime reporting is not an exact science. I would not
want to talk about crime reporting in other cities, especially Phil-
adelphia. But in New York City
Mr. Rangel. Do we understand what we are talking about. Com-
missioner? I am not claiming that you don't accurately report what
you have. I am saying, and you have been to enough community meet-
ings to know this yourself, that more and more people believe it is
just not worthwhile to report crimes. They are not reporting. I know
that in the house where I live there have been in the last 2 years, a
half-dozen burglaries. After each incident I have asked the question,
"has a report been made to the precinct," and in each instance the
answer has been "no."
So I had to initiate 2 or 3 days later, the report, even though I
recognized that had it been made earlier, the police would have had a
greater chance to solve the case.
Mr. Steiger. Would the gentleman yield ?
Mr. Rangel. Yes.
Mr. Steiger. I think the gentleman has raised a very, very important
question, and I know, Commissioner, you recognize it from your service
here in Washin^on. Not only are people not reporting crimes because
they don't feel it is worthwhile, but at least in Washington, I know,
there is an even greater factor of fear of reprisal by the accused.
As to whether the reluctance to report a crime is on the increase or
not, I agree with Mr. Rangel. I don't think any of us question the
accuracy of your report. It would seem logical to assume if the com-
plaints are down, probably the overall crime is down.
Whether the percentages conform exactly or not, I don't think is
important, but I think the fear of the victim, who is so intimidated
that he is reluctant to report the crime, is something we probably ought
to address ourselves to.
Commissioner Murphy. My response to that, Congressman, I
couldn't agree with you more. I think the National Crime Commission,
in 1967, pointed out that many people don't report crimes for a variety
of reasons. They have no hope of the crime being solved.
I am well aware, Congressman, of many people, and tragically many
in our district perhaps more so than other parts of the city, have a
sense of frustration.
Mr. Rangel. I would like to add. Commissioner, that because of
your attempts to change the image of the precinct and change the image
of the policeman to the point of his being regarded as a part of the
community and the community is encouraged to become a partner in
fighting against crime, progress has been made. I remember when
people in my community would not have walked in that precinct for
15
any reason, because the precinct was always associated in the minds
of people with wrongdoing and insensitivity. Because of the things
you have done, I hope that perhaps we can encourage people to make
complaints, even though it will take some time to change the general
cynicism about what is going to happen.
So I am not taking issue with the accuracy of your reports, I am
just saying that I don't think it really warrants such attractive dis-
plays, because there are more and more people saying, "To hell with
it, we just hope things become better."
Commissioner Murphy. That is what is frustrating. If that is
accurate, that the reporting is getting worse each year, and it may
be right
Mr. Rangel. I am not going to give you an example, but during
the break — letters I have written to you, where people, elderly people,
have written to me after filing a complaint and I know darned well,
God forbid something happens to them again, they are not goin^ to
complain. To be victimized by crime is considered now as a way of life.
Commissioner Murphy. I certainly agree that this has been a
problem. Whether it is worsening;, I am not sure, but certainly, we
ought to have better crime reporting in the United States, not only in
New York City, but nationally. We ought to have better crime report-
ing because the system is subject to error and, tragically, manipulation
as well.
I think we should be concerned about having the most acccurate
crime reporting possible, so the police will know how to address it.
There are many weaknesses in the system. Whether it is getting worse,
I am not sure. We are trying awfully hard to make our system as good
as we can make it.
Mr. Eangel. But you do believe this is one of your more successful
projects, the undercover?
Commissioner Murphy. Oh. yes.
Mr. Keating. Would the gentleman yield for just one observation ?
I want to congratulate the gentleman from New York for his comments
that people do not report crime, not to the police division, not to the
law enforcement agencies. Individuals in my district — I don't have
anything to back it up — but my impression in communicating with
them is tlieir attitude of "What's the use ?"
I think it is a very important point Mr. Rangel brings up. I say
we now have at least three districts that are very diverse, that are mak-
ing the same representation, and I think it is an extremely vital part
of the total law enforcement problem.
I think with the reverses you have had and some rape conviction
cases, I suspect rape may be one of the worst crimes involved in non-
reporting at the moment, because of what the girl has to go through,
and the very difficulties you have had in securing convictions.
I was a little surprised when the gentleman referred to a stranger-
to-stranger crime and didn't include rape. I thought surely that would
fit that category.
But I think that is a very serious element that we have. Again, I
congratulate Mr. Rangel.
Chairman Pepper. Will you go ahead, Mr. Voelker.
Mr. Voelker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16
I might just comment that I am in total agreement here, because
without the basic source document, the crime complainant, there can
be no tactical response to those problems. There can be no identifying
of high crime trends and high crime patterns.
Rather than stand on these, which was not my intention at all, I
would just like to cite the 1972 achievement record of the unit I com-
mand, the city wide anticrime section.
With the complement of 200 male police officers and 6 female police
officers, this unit effected, in 1972, 3,602 arrests. And I am sure we are
all aware, raw arrest statistics can also be misleading. But I think
when we further discuss and comment on the fact that of these total
arrests, 83 percent were for felonies, I think they now become more
meaningful. I am able to tell you of those arrests that approximately
750 were for robbery, for grand larceny from the person, which are
the two penal law terms that encompass the citizen term "mugging."
Among those arrests were 540 for guns ; and of the arrests disposed
of to date in all categories, 73 percent have resulted in conviction. Of
the robbery cases disposed of, 90 percent have resulted in conviction. I
think this is what I would rather stand upon than the other, which
was just shown to indicate there was a decrease in reported crime in the
same categories where this emphasis and focus has been placed.
When we look for our anticrime man, we look for a man who is
interested, enthusiastic, is mature, has good judgment, and we try to
measure in advance that most difficult thing to measure, integrity.
These 200 officers in 1972 effected 50 bribery arrests ; representing less
than 1 percent of the department, they effected 9 percent of the bribery
arrests.
I think this is a comment upon the integrity level of the unit.
To talk about anticrime is one thing. I think it is much more clari-
fying if I would show you two anticrime officers, the way they nor-
mally work on the street. I and they will be very pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
Mr. Lynch. Before you do that. Chief, I wonder, certainly the
questions raised by the Congressmen are very pertinent. I suppose one
way that one increases public confidence about a police department is
to be able to advertise, if you will, the number of convictions had.
So, I simply would like to reiterate and stress that if you could
supply us with data for our final record, as to the number, as well as
the percentage, of those robbery cases for 1972, it would be most
helpful.
Mr. VoELKER. Fine, sir.
[The information requested was not received.]
Mr. Lynch. Before you introduce your patrolmen who are here
today, I wonder if you could explain to us how you deploy the city-
wide anticrime patrolmen around the city. What judgments are made
in deploying those men ? How do you do it ?
Mr. VoELKER. We take a statistical overview of the entire city. Each
precinct commander is now responding to his problems. I consider us
a civilian-clothes overlay. We look at the total crime picture and see
where the areas of high incidence are.
We then meet with the local commander and his staff and he finds
for himself, if you will, the information. My staff will say to him, "I
see your robberies are up." He will say, "They are." And on Lennox
17
Avenue, between 52d and 58th on the West Side, between 8 and 11 p.m.,
and the predominant team is two males and a predominant victim,
if he has this information, he will furnish it to us. We then tailor our
assignments in response to the identified crime.
Mr. Lynch. To what extent do you use them as a saturation force?
Would you at any one time be sending 100 anticrime unit personnel
into a given sector of the city ?
Mr. VoELKER. We have attempted saturations, not of that size. A
saturation of possibly 20 or 30 men, which is a lot of civilian-clothed
police officers in a precinct.
Mr. Lynch. What are the results of that kind of saturation work
then?
Mr. VoELKER. I would have to say, in my mind, it is too early to
make a firm assessment, but I see this has the potential for possibly
turning crime statistics.
Mr. Lynch. I wonder if you could introduce your two anticrime
unit patrolmen to the panel and ask if they would take a seat.
Mr. VoELKER. Patrolman Leroy Callier, would you step up, and
Patrolman Carl Garritani ?
Mr. Lynch. I wonder if you gentlemen would please tell the mem-
bers of this panel how long you have been assigned to the anticrime
unit and tell us what you do in the normal course of your duties?
Statement of Carl Garritani
Mr. Garritani. I have been assigned to the citywide anticrime
unit for approximately 16 months. My duties consist of daily going
into areas to which I am assigned, trying to blend or decoy, depending
on the circumstances in that area.
Mr. Lynch. How long have you been a New York City patrolman ?
Mr. Garritani. Four years.
Mr. Lynch. How many arrests have you made since you have been
a member of the city anticrime unit ?
Mr. Garritani. I, personally, have made approximately 20 arrests
in the last 16 months and assisted in about 40 other arrests.
Mr. Lynch. Would that be considered a high arrest rate ?
Mr. Garritani. It might be slightly above the average.
Mr. Lynch. How would that compare with the number of arrests a
uniformed patrolman might effect in that same period of time ?
Mr. Garritani. In the same category of crime, I would say it would
be higher simply because we have greater opportunity to make the
high-degree felony arrest that he does not have. Numberwise, it might
not be significantly different than active uniformed men.
Mr. Lynch. How were you selected as a patrolman for this unit?
Mr. Garritani. I was interviewed. I submitted an application to my
precinct commander who ruled that I would be eligible, depending on
my activity in my particular precinct. He then put in my name to the
citywide anticrime section. I was called down and interviewed, thor-
oughly screened, and subsequently selected.
Mr. Lynch. What kind of training did you undergo prior to going in
the street as an undercover patrolman ?
Mr. Garritani. There was 1 week of formal training and many
many weeks of on-the-job training.
18
Mr. Lynch. Would you tell us a little bit about that formal train-
ing, sir ?
Mr. Garritani. Yes. We spent 1 week in the police academy. We were
spoken to by members of our department specializing in disguise work,
undercover work, plain clothes activity, hand-to-hand combat, and
administrative recordkeeping and report taking.
Statement of Leroy Callier
Mr. Lynch. Patrolman Callier, would you tell us how long you
have been a member of the city anticrime unit ?
Mr. Callier. I have been a member of the city anticrime section
for approximately li^ years. Prior to that, I was in the tactical patrol
force for approximately 2 years.
Mr. Lynch. How many arrests have you made ?
Mr. Callier. For the entire time I have been a police officer, I have
effected 177 arrests.
Mr. Lynch. How many of those came since you have been a member
of the city wide anticrime section ?
Mr. Callier. 44.
Mr. Lynch. How many felony ?
Mr. Callier. Thirty-eight of the forty-four were felony arrests.
Mr. Lynch. How many of the 38 were for robbery?
Mr. Callier. Approximately 20.
Mr. Lynch. You spent how long as a uniformed patrolman before
joining this section ?
Mr. Callier. 21/^ years.
Mr. Lynch. What is your judgment, as a street-level policeman, as
to the effectiveness of this kind of policing ?
Mr. Callier. Well, we were able to blend in the area more readily
and we are able to ^et right on top of a situation when there might
be one that is imminent. Also, in some cases where a complainant
might be reluctant to complain, we are right there, which we, in many
cases, take the complainant to the precinct, process the papers, et cetera.
Also, in many cases, we pick up the complainant and take him to
court, which affords more safety for them, and a little confidence.
Mr. Lynch. Is this kind of policing more dangerous for you, per-
sonally, than wearing a regular uniform?
Mr. Callier. Well, for any police officer, I feel, out in the streets, it
is dangerous. But in many cases, we try and have the crime perpetrated
upon ourselves rather than the victim.
Mr. Rangel. I would like to follow up on that point, because it
seems to me that you are being very modest, because you "blend"
too well in certain areas.
It just seems to me, you might have a whole lot of explaining to
do as you try to effect an arrest, if some of your brother officers are
not entirely familiar with your identification. You don't find that
any problem at all ?
Mr. Voelker. Could I respond to that ?
Mr. Rangel. Yes.
Mr. Voelker. We do have a system that provides identification be-
tween nonuniformed police officers and uniformed police officers. We
found it to be very effective. I really don't think we want it highly
publicized. It is known throughout the police community ; it is known
19
throughout the police community within the city. We have a system
that we can change on a day-by-day basis, that permits identification
between and among the officers.
Mr. Rangel. My question is a serious one, because of a lot of things
that are happening in cities throughout these United States.
Many black officers off duty, especially if they live or work around
my community, have to be very careful in how they attempt to effect
an arrest, or to show they have a pistol, for fear some brother officers
might overreact. That is a problem we have to deal with and it just
seems to me in that outfit you might be more subject to well-inten-
tioned attacks by your brother officers.
But certainly, in the middle of the night, between 6 p.m. and 2 a.m.,
you have to think rather fast to get that code out, if the perpetrator
looked better off than you did, and a brother officer was coming, try-
ing to decide which one was apprehending whom.
Mr. Callier. Normally, with myself working with a team of three,
and one of us usually stays back in case police officers are respond-
ing, to let them know that there is a black police officer at the scene and
they will usually give them the clothes I have on, the color of the
coat, and so forth.
Mr. Rangel. But you do dress more discretely when you are not on
duty?
Mr. Callier. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. Patrolman Callier, in that regard, I wonder if you, or
perhaps Chief Voelker, could tell us how many members of this unit
have been wounded in line of duty during the past year? Do you have
those figures?
Mr. Voelker. None by gimshot. There has been one man stabbed,
although not seriously, this year. There have been many officers who
have been punched and struck with various weapons and knocked to
the ground and kicked.
As far as the potential for danger, I think there is a considerable
potential for danger in this kind of an operation. I think we have ad-
dressed it in advance. I think the fact that we do have a system of
identification, that we do operate primarily in three-man teams, the
men receive extensive training, all indicate an awareness of this
danger. It is very dangerous. I think providence must have intervened,
because we have not had any serious injuries.
Mr. Lynch. In other cities — one city in particular — operations
similar to this one have met with a good deal of criticism because it
appears that a high rate of official violence has occurred.
Commissioner Murphy, I wonder if you could respond and tell us
whether, in the course of operating this unit, patrolmen are engaged
in more shootouts, more acts of violence, than would be the normal case
in police operations?
Commissioner Mitrphy. I think, as Chief Voelker points out, the
mission of the unit is such that the men are exposed to danger on
almost every mission, but their restraint, the use of force by the officers
in the citywide anticrime unit has both been commendable, and the
use of violence, legal violence, has been extremely limited.
We are proud of that. We really do not have even what I could
describe as a pattern of complaints that the unit uses force excessively,
and I think Chief Voelker has pointed out what a good record we have
had, even for the people in the unit.
20
So we are very pleased with the restraint, and this is something we
constantly stress, to avoid the use of force and especially weapons, if
at all possible, even to the extent of retreating or devising a new
strategy. Of course, we don't teach the men to lose a criminal who has
committed a violent crime, certainly. But restraint is something we
stress, day after day, and I think Chief Voelker's outstanding leader-
ship has been a factor in this regard.
Mr. Rangel. Chief, would your response be the same in connection
with the tactical patrol force ?
Commissioner Murphy. Congressman, I am proud of the restraint
of the New York City police officers, generally. The work of the tactical
patrol force, again, is unique and unlike — incidentally, we have signif-
icantly reduced the size of the tactical patrol force and one of the
ways in which this unit was formed was to reduce that unit.
They are another unit I am very proud of. They work under very
difficult circumstances, especially because they move from precinct to
precinct, night after night. We are all concerned. I think all of us at
this table understand that that is not the ideal way for the uniformed
police officer to function.
The ideal way is for him to go into the precinct, into the community,
to introduce himself, to be identified, and to be supported and accepted
by the community as a police officer they know.
The mission of the tactical police patrol force, unfortunately, mov-
ing about the city to handle crime control and any incident that has the
potential for disorder, that mission is such that they are not known and
they are stranger policemen to a certain extent, and this results in their
using rnore force, I would say — and I don't have data with me — than
the ordinarily uniformed police officer.
Mr. Rangel. Commissioner, nobody is more unknown to the com-
munity than this outstanding outfit we are talking about this morn-
ing. How would the mobility of the tactical patrol force allow them
to use more restraint or less restraint than other police officers ?
Commissioner Murphy. Because the missions are different. If we
have a crowd, if there are demonstrations, or picketing, or serious
disaster, or any kind of minor disorder, the tactical patrol force is the
unit we send in to deal with crowd control and to deal with tensions
of crowds, which is a very different mission, not to take anything away
from these officers, and at least one of them has served in the tactical
patrol force with distinction.
I think that other mission does put them in a different position. They
are also required, the tactical patrol force now, to deal with conditions
such as large crowds congregating on street corners for one reason or
another. They may have to be used to help move the crowd along. We
emphasize community relations and the patient approach, and I think
they do an outstanding job in that regard. They do, because of their
mission, meet more incidents that may require the use of force.
Mr. Rangel. But you do believe they are necessary, more so than
the local police precinct, where the tensions are building up, where
one might know the captain, et cetera ?
Commissioner Murphy. Congressman, my own view of it is I wish
we didn't have to have any uniformed police officers, other than those
permanently assigned to a precinct. Because I strongly believe in the
value of the police officer being known. That is the basic concept of
21
our neighborhood police team approach, and as you know, we even have
new resident police officers.
They are real heroes in my book because they try to police the
neighborhood where they live, and that is not an easy mission because
of all that is involved, and residents coming to them with their com-
plaints and bothering them 24 hours a day, and so forth.
We have reduced the size of both our tactical patrol force and our
special event squad, because Chief Cawley and I both believe strongly
in the neighborhood policeman, whether he is on the team or just one
of the precinct officers.
But I am not at the point where I feel we can do away with our
tactical patrol force yet. I wish the problems of crowd control and the
potential for disorder were so low that we felt we didn't need any.
Mr. Rangel. What is the size of that force now ?
Mr. Cawley. Approximately 40 in the tactical patrol and about 25
or 35 in the special event squad. A combined total of 75.
Mr. Rangel. \Vhat about the PEP squad? I forgot what the letters
stand for.
Commissioner Murphy. Preventive enforcement patrol.
Mr. Rangel. Are they still in operation ?
Mr. Cawley. We have decentralized that down to 28 and 32. 1 think
there are units of 10 in each of those 2 precincts. At one time, as you
know, we operated from the moral level. We brought it back into the
community where we thought it would be more effective.
Mr. Rangel. So the total strike force of the PEP is 20 ?
Mr. Cawley. I believe at this time it is 20; 10 in each of the 2
precincts.
I would also like to make this point, if I may. In a recent report
from Chief Voelker, he indicated that during 1972 there were ap-
proximately, at least an estimated, 10,000 contacts with the citizens
of New York City, resulting in a total of 9 complaints about the
actions of our police officers in the citywide anticrime section.
Mr. Steiger. I wanted to ask Mr. Callier, how long are they able
to stay in a given area without calling your cover, and how will this
exposure affect your future cover work? Either one of you gentlemen
who wishes to respond.
Mr. Callier. That depends on the type of operation we are haying.
If I feel that the way I am dressed now is actually blown, I will either
switch coats with my partners, or I will carry a wig and put it on.
Mr. Steiger. From your own experiences, do you find that the people
you are anxious to apprehend are kware of the existence of your
operation ; is that correct ?
Mr. Callier. No. In many cases, I have been approached by prospec-
tive muggers to team with them in order to mug another person.
Mr. Steiger. Have you had the same experience ?
Mr. Garritani. I found in some cases they are aware we are some-
where in the area, but they are not quite sure where we are. And if
we follow what we feel might be a perpetrator long enough, he does
commit the crime. It is a question of frustration he has to commit the
crime, and when he knows to do it.
Mr. Steiger. You are telling us then that staying under cover is not
the problem the layman might think it is and you are not supported
as greatly, at least, as I would assume.
22
Mr. VoELKER. I wonder if I might respond to that ?
Mr. Steiger. Certainly.
Mr. VoELKER, I think our two objectives, we have a short-range
objective — we are looking to take this relatively invisible policeman
and putting him where the crime is most likely to occur. He is going
to get closer to the crime scene, hopefully. He will make a better
observation, a high-quality arrest, and enhance the chance of
conviction.
In the long range, I think we want to sow the seeds of uncertainty
in the minds of the street criminal as to just who the police officer
may be. He is certainly not only the man in blue; he may be any of
those we described before — the taxidriver, the truckdriver, the old
woman.
So I don't feel the exposure hurts these officers for that reason and
for the reason that, be it notwithstanding, he could be an old woman
tomorrow, but he could be anything, a cabdriver, a student. He is
liable to be in the north end of Manhattan tonight and the south end
of the Bronx tomorrow.
Mr. Steiger. That was my question. You gentlemen are in the city-
wide end of 200. Do you know from talking to your brother undercover
officers in the precinct if they have had to move around because they
are inclined to be spotted by the criminal element within the precinct ?
Mr. Callier. Because of the closeness of the contact we have be-
tween teams, we are able to, if one team feels they are actually blown,
their cover is blown, what we do is get in touch with another team and
have them pick up where we left off.
Mr. Garritani. We had an incident like that last week, which points
it out pretty vividly, and I think we can thank the price of meat for
being able to make that arrest.
One of the teams spotted what they thought were several youths
breaking into a closed meat market. It had a screen in the front door
and apparently they were working on a lock. But they also felt the
young fellows may have them made out as police officers. So they called
for another unit, and myself and my partner happened to be nearby,
and with the benefit of binoculars we stayed a block and a half away
and watched the group ; and we enabled the other unit to drive away
and let the perpetrators see them drive away, and their fears were
dispelled and they continued to work on the lock, break in the meat
market, and we wound up getting six arrests out of that.
Mr. Lynch. I wonder if you can tell us what kind of automobiles
you use and what kind of communications equipment you carry.
Mr. Garritani. We have several makes of late model cars we use,
non-police-type automobiles. We have our own van walkie-talkie sys-
tem for communications. We have step-vans, we have telephone com-
pany trucks. Yellow Cabs, Gypsy Cabs, and a great assortment of
unmarked police cars, but totally nonrelated police vehicles.
Mr. Lynch. These then are not the standard kind of unmarked
police cars ?
Mr. Garritani. That is correct. They would be just like any other
car on the street.
Mr. VoELKER. If I can elaborate on that. We were very fortunate
to receive slightly over one-half million dollars in Federal grants in
the latter part of 1971, which was used to purchase, among other
23
things, 83 sedans, some step-vans, surveillance truck, binoculars, tele-
scopes, cameras, some protective equipment, and some theatrical
makeup which, believe it or not, is quite valuable in this kind of an
operation, to give the man the opportunity to change his appearance.
But the sedans, as you alluded to, were not the standard, heavy-duty,
four-door, dark blue or black that in our minds are known to child
and criminal alike. We have Torinos, LeManses, Skylarks, golds, reds,
hardtops, whitewalls, chrome trim; and none at all with the look of
police vehicles.
Our communications system is UHF system, rather sophisticated,
which permits an anticrime man with a hand-held walkie-talkie to
talk to an anticrime man anywhere else in the city.
Mr. Lynch. I believe you have asked for an additional amount of
Federal funds for this year ; is that correct ?
iVIr. VoELKER. We have, sir. The amount is $735,000. It has been
approved. Among other things, it will be used to purchase 140 vehi-
cles, the vast majority of which Avill go on to the precinct teams. Among
these are sedans, econovans, and yellow medallion taxis, which are
highly effective as surveillance vehicles.
Air. Lynch. Is that LEAA support?
Mr. VoELKER. Yes, it is.
Mr. Lynch. Do you use LEAA money for anything other than
equipment in this program ? In other words, the salaries are regular
N.Y.P.D. salaries?
jNIr. VoETvKER. Yes, sir: that the uiatching funds for the cities are
in salaries. Just for, basically, the equipment I mentioned.
Mr. Lynch. I would like to address one question to you,
riiief Cawley. One of the values, it would seem, of a program like
this is to create in the minds of so-called street criminals an appre-
hension that people other than uniformed people might be policing;
and in that regard, does the department have a policy about pub-
licizing this program and, if so, what is the policy ?
Mr. Cawley. Yes ; we have publicized rather extensively the exist-
ence of both the citywide anticrime section, as well as the 800 men
assigned to the precinct level. There has been considerable newspaper
coverage, television coverage, national magazine coverage. We go out
of our way to let the wrongdoer, the criminal in New York City, know
that if he is on the street and contemplating a mugging, he may be mug-
ing a police officer. I think it has been very successful,
]\Ir. Lynch. Is there any way, as police administratore, you can make
a judgment, not just on the number of arrests Avhich have been made by
a unit such as this, but as to the possible deterrent effect it might have ?
Mr. Cawley. Measuring deterrent effect is exceedingly difficult.
It is something, I guess, we have been chasing for many years. It has
proved to be very elusive.
I think the combination, thougli, of the uniformed patrolman, mar-
lied, together with the civilian clotJies — un.ifoi-med pati'olmou cou-
pled with the detective investigative capability, all three working
together, blending as a team, must liave a positive effect, but 1 can t
give an estimate as to what.
Mr, Brasco. Would counsel yield at that point ?
I wanted to welcome you, Conunissioner, and your stall', and say that
I apologize for being late but my flight this morning was delayed.
95-158— 73— pt. 1 3
24
In any event, in a city of millions of frustrated people with tlie disa-
bilities you have to work with, I want to say I believe your department
has done a fine job.
Mr. Rangel. I might add, Commissioner, that proves he is not iim-
nino- for mayor ; rig-ht ?
Mr. Brasco. You are right, Charlie. Commenting on the deterrent
effect of the undercover operation in a portion of the district I repre-
sent, we have a housing development that liad a murder in a local rec-
reation center and many acts of violence around the development. As a
result, the New York City housing police stationed a similar force in
the area, and many arrests were made within the first 2 days of their
being in the vicinity.
I can tell you that crime dro])ped in the area, where heretofore it
had been abnormally high.
In that controlled setting of the housing development, the deterrent
effect was most effective, and I think it is an excellent way to fight
crime ; and the psychological effect, beyond that, is important.
Commissioner iSIuRPHY. I nm delighted to hear you say that. Con-
gressman. I said earlier, Cliief Cawlev is reallv the initiator of the
citvwide program. I think he is modest.
I am completely convinced two factors — shifting manpower fi'om
after midnight to the before midnight liour and authorizing precinct
commanders to use 10 percent of tlioir personnel in civilian clothes,
and the creation of the citywide unit — have had a tremendous effect.
I agree with Chief Crawley that it is very difficult to accomplish
this, but I have heard from people in the narcotics treatment side of
this total pi'oblem of crime tliat addicts coming in to treatment have
indicated that the streets ai-en't as easy to work as they were. We don't
want to take credit and say we are pushing addicts into treatment
programs, but it is possible that is having that effect. And I think the
more we can do, what you just described, to make a housing project
or an area of the city safer, I think we are accomplishing something.
Mr. Brasco. On that same subject matter, during the course of the
narcotics hearings which we had in the middle of last year, we had
several undercover people from your department who testified before
this connnittee, and I would sa}- that the same thing held true there,
where they were able to get into the high schools to effect arrests.
As a result of the overall testimony, it was shown to be a most posi-
tive weapon and as a result the Board of Education of the city of
New York took some steps in the direction of attempting to provide
more safety in the schools by first recognizing there was a problem as
you people pointed out.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Commissioner, I wonder if you could tell us whether
or not it would be your judgment that this program has now be-
come institutionalized within your department and, if so, have you
made any plans to continue and/or expand its operation?
Commissioner Murphy. Well, I have very strong feelings it has been
a most successful program and I think a citywide unit as institutional-
ized now, and we are in the midst of very active discussion at the
moment for enlarging the citywide anticrime program. The dilemma
is where to draw the people from, but I am currently inclined very
much toward enlargement.
Mr. Rangel. Mr. Counsel, may I inquire?
25
Chief, there is no question thut this section of your force has been
widely accepted in the connnunity and generally believed to Ixi suc-
cessful, and, certainly, your conviction record substantiated that. Coun-
sel asketl whether or not aou intend to institutionalize it and I thought
your answer was going- to be based on a consideration of manpower.
Perhaps Chief Cawley could explain once again the problem we in
the community have in connection wdtli deploying the men that you
have with existing budgetary restrictions. It is hard to determine how
much of a deterrent the foot patrolmen are, but we continue to have the
same problem — and I assume other cities have it — where the layman
and the person in the street say they wants more foot patrolmen. The
geographic area has not increased the population has increased and
without taking away from the good work being done by these men,,
they are not, in fact, deterrents because of lack of uniforms.
The answer has been that you can cover more ground with the squad
car than the foot patrolman can. Is it still your belief the visibility
of the foot patrolman does not outweigh the flexibility of the squad'
car ?
Mr. Cawley. In order to be responsive to the tremendous service
needs of the community. Congressman, I think the radio car is the
most economical and effective way of providing the highest level of
service. If we could afford it, we would certainly like to have more
men on foot patrol. We do not have that luxury at the moment.
We have tried to take both sides of the street, thougli. We ha\-e in-
stituted a number of programs and one of which comes to mind is the
Park, walk, and talk concept.
We have tried to require officers during particular times of their tour
of duty to get out of the car, to walk on the streets of the community,
and to meet with the business people.
We have put in a program I call, responsive patrol. That program
is designed to deal with what I call ''unstructured time." Only about 30
percent of a uniformed patrolmen's time is consumed in mandated
services, so he has quite a bit of time that is available to us to direct
his energies and suggest where he could better spend that time.
So we have tried, in that part of his time, to get him to leave the
radio car, to get out and walk. But right now, we have been through
an additional process. We are in the process of hiring more people.
Hopefully, in the very near future, we will have additional personnel
that we can consider how to best assign them and where to best assign
them. But right now, I do believe the most effective way of using the
resources that I have is to keep them assigned to radio multipatrol duty.
Mr. Rangel. This sounds like a breakthrough. Meaning, if more
money was available and you had more manpower, you would con-
sider more foot patrolmen rather than expansion of the radio car
sj^stem i
Mr. Cawley. That will depend, of course, upon the analysis of the
local needs on the part of the precinct commander. That, again, I go
back to our setting in, the commissioner setting in, a concept ()f de-
centralization of duty. We have had each precinct commander to con-
tinually evaluate his problems, to come up with the best use of re-
sources made available to him.
If the commanding officer of tlie precinct believes the best way of
solving many of his problems would lje to run on RMP planning^^
Mr. Raxgel. What is RMP?
26
Mr. Cawley. Radio motor patrol. And then the balance of those
resources that are used in scooter patrol, foot patrol, we would en-
courao-e them to think through their own problems and suggest to us
hoAv to best use the people assigned to them.
Mr. Rangel. Wouldn't more foot patrolmen want to be elevated to
the squad cars ? I don't know. But isn't that something like a better as-
signment than pounding the beat ?
Mr. Cawley. No; I don't think it is necessarily viewed as a better
assignment. I think, if the best place to use a police officer would be on
the scooter or on the foot patrol assignment, that officer would not
■consider it to be a lesser assignment than one in a car. Cars are kept
'quite busj^, as you know.
Mr. Rangel. I won't get into that, the Avay they are kept busy, but it
just seems to me you are asking a lot of the command if most of its men
would want cars, and, heck, cluring the cold, bitter winters, it seems
to me a car m.akes a heck of a lot of difference — whether you are in
the sti'eet or in the car.
But that being what it is, are you saying that now the department is
:so decentralized that if you were voted more funds that the local pre-
•cillct commanders would decide whether there would be more foot
patrolmen or more radio cars?
Commissioner Murphy. I would like to respond to that. Congress-
man. As you laiow, we have been in the job freeze in the city for about
3 vears and that means we have suffered an attrition of well over 2.000
police officers and well over 1,000 civilian employees. So it is a
kind of 10-percent attrition over 3 years.
When I was public safety director here in Washington, in 1968, for
the first time in, I think 10 years, I brought the department up to
quota of 3,100 officers. In Washington, D.C.
Now in Washington, there are 5,100 police officers, the last I heard.
Those of us in the policing world, when we meet with the distinguished
Chief Wilson in Washington, we say to him, "You are a lucky fellow;
you have wall-to-wall cops."
In Washington, Chief Wilson is blessed Avith 6.5 policemen per
1,000 of population. We have less than four policemen per 1,000 of pop-
ulation in New York City. Congressman, I assure you, if we had five
policemen per 1,000, we would have a lot more on foot patrol. If we
had 6.5, we would haA^e wall-to-wall cops in your district.
Mr. Rangel. You deal with the population figure ratio to the police
officer, and I assume that is the best Avay to do it. From a layman's
point of view, however, while the population has expanded geographi-
cally. New York City has not increased, so that we could have the same
number of policemen in any given area as we believe we used to have
before the expansion of the squad car.
Commissioner Murphy. Well, there are a number of other factoids,
Congressman. As a result of better working conditions, officers have
longer vacations, more paid holidays, time for training. We don't
really have available the same amount of street time per officer that
we had a few years ago.
Another factor is the time lost in court. The number of times an
officer must go back when he makes an arrest.
So the truth of the matter is — and I know Chief Cawley and I have
both come under fire for shifting more on the basis of crime incidence
27
and tliat is wliat we have been doino-. so Miat also there lias been a net
loss of manpower in your district, Ibelieve, because we have had this
serious loss citywide.' The distribution of officers citywide, I believe^
has improved for your district.
That, is, the percentage of all of those available for precinct work
has improved because in Totenville, for example, the merchants feel
they don't have sufficient police protection. I think you know where
Totenville is. It is true, we reduced the size of the force in Totenville
and some other outlyino- precincts, trying to get a distribution more ia
accordance Avith the incidence of crime and the calls for service.
But I am sorry to say, because of the total attrition in the depart-
ment, there has been a decrease from what you had some years ago.
Mr. Eaxcf.l. I appreciate the scientific input you brought to the
police department. Xo one can successfully argue against the proposi-
tion that you have increased the effective utilization of the force. But
getting more policemen, really, is a political matter in a sense. I was
the sponsor of the so-called fourth platoon bill in the New York State
Legislature and I know the argument in State legislative bodies will not
be scientific but will, in fact, be political in nature, as each legislator
attempts to reflect the feeling of the people he represents.
So my real question, is : notwithstanding your technical argiiments on
the utilization of manpower, to the layman, the foot patrolman
represents a large part of the solution of the problem. I am asking
you. Chief, what number of men do you need to enable you to reach
tliat point where you have already used as much manpower for the
radio squad car as you can, and then you can begin to assign the excess
to v\iiat the people believe the solutions, from a layman's point of view,
of having more visible evidence of police presence.
It seems to me from an emotional point of view, most people believe
there is no substitute for the foot patrolman, whether it is for better
police-conmiunity relations, or as a deterrent to crime. If, politically,
we were to ask the State legislature for more money for more police,
it would be embarrassing if you came up saying these additional men
would be used for more radio cars.
^h•. Cawley. Again, I am not trydng to avoid the question. I have to
come back to the fact that there has been a 2,000-man attrition in the
last few years.
]Mr. Eaxgel. We know what we have suffered and we know the
difficulty with the New York City budget to bring you back up to
standard manpower. But somewhere along the line, with all of the
politicians talking, we have to find out how many men you think
A\ ould bo necessary to effectively patrol the streets of New York, and
do everything that you want to do.
Chairman PErPER. We will have a 10-minute recess.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Chairman Peppee. The committee will come to order.
Gentlemen of the committee, I thought we would like the first pres-
entation made and then we would ask questions.
Mr. I.YXcir. I wonder if we could at this time call Lieutenant Hubert
of the auto crime s(iuad to explain to the committee what the function
of that imit is, and what its succevSS rate has been ?
Statement of Frank Hubert
Mr. Hubert. Good morning.
28
The auto crime unit is a uniform force. It works in marked and
unmarked autos and the main thrust of the unit is the auto larceny
problem.
Our command is citywide anticrime section and we are under the
command of Chief Voelker. We patrol all areas of the city where the
auto larceny problem is hig-li and we respond there on. primarily,
statistical analysis, although we will respond upon a request of a local
precinct commander.
I was going to utilize the flip chart, but I see it is down. I guess the
best way to reflect upon achievements of 1972, we have a complement of
64 field patrolmen. It represents 0.22 percent, or, better yet. one-fifth
of 1 percent of the entire department.
It effected 1,758 arrests during the year 1972, of which 1.58o were
for felonies. This figure represents 90 percent of the total arrest picture
for this unit. It has effected 899 arrests for a grand larceny, auto. This
represents 9.4 percent of all grand larceny auto arrests effected in the
New York City Police Department.
Of our total arrests, over 1,200 are directly related to auto larcenies.
In addition, the auto crime unit has effected 16 arrests for bribery,
which reflects 3 percent of all bribery arrests in the city.
An additional function of our unit is that we Avill respond upon
request to any precinct whereupon a precinct patrolman has what he
believes to be on auto larceny and he is unable to identify the car or
identify the documents involved in the car. We responded during 1972
on 552 occasions, resulting in 337 arrests resulting from the identifica-
tion of the vehicle in question.
I thi ik our most impressive figure is that we have recovered 2.078
stolen motor vehicles, with an estimated value of $2.6 million. We
arrive at this figiire by using the i-etail figure for the recovered vehi-
cles ; we deducted any damage on the vehicle ; and then I airain reduced
this figure by 10 percent, to bring it as close as I could to the real value.
Chairman Peppi:e. Have you any figures on the age groups which
are primarih^ responsible for auto thefts ?
Mr. Hubert. It really doesn't lock in. We run the whole gamut. We
have the professional thief. We have had one as old as 52 years old.
And Ave moved down to the 40-year-old age bracket; 30-year-old age
bracket. I would say, about the only answer I could give you in this
particular area, that the joyriding, transportation thief would be the
young individual.
As we go into a professional thief, where he is stealing tlie car for
parts, or he is stealing the car for resale, Ave would go into a middle-age
bracket, say, starting at 30 years old.
C'hairman Pepper. Thank you.
Mr. Hubert. You are welcome.
Of these recovered vehicles which I just mentioned, 1,084 Ave re
recovered in arrest situations; 994 Avere recovered in nonarrest
situations.
I don't contribute this dramatic decrease in grand larceny, auto,
Avhich Avas 21.6 for the year 1972, solely to the efforts of our uiiit. But
I do feel the formation of this unit has filled a long-neglected void
that existed betAveen the detective bureau's auto squad, Avhich pri-
marily investigates major auto theft rings, and the uniform force,
Avhich lacked the knoAvledge and expertise to correctly identify an
auto.
29
But it has proven, to me at least, that a limited number of highly
motivated and trained men wliose efforts are directed to, very spe-
cifically, a narrow area of the total crime picture, have caused a decrease
in auto larcenies.
Along with the creation of the auto crime hearing in March of 1972,
the patrol services bureau decided to further expand its program
against auto-connected crimes, and into existence came the auto crime
squad. Using as a cadre, men from the auto crime unit, eight patrol-
men from each patrol precinct received 2 days of training iji the auto
crime field.
Upon completion, the patrolmen returned to their commands and
were available to assist and train precinct personnel in the various
crimes connected with auto theft.
As the value of this course became evident, it was expanded to include
lieutenants, sergeants, and specialized units. Over 1,400 members of
this department attended this course during 1972.
With a view toward providing a much-needed service to the public,
we are currently engaged in developing a program where a specific
day of the week — we are thinking of Saturdays, between 10 a.m. and
G p.m. at this time — we would make our expertise available to the
motoring public by having a location where anyone contemplating
purchasing a used auto could have it inspected by our personnel to
insure it is not a stolen vehicle.
We feel this would reduce the luunber of incidents where a pei*son
unknowingly purchases a stolen vehicle. A side effect of this program,
we are hoping, is to curtail the auto thief's market for his goods.
We also had published in two major newspapers a list of w^arnings
for the used-car buyer to follow in purchasing a used auto.
I feel that these combined endeavors, plus the awareness by other
members of the department of the availability of willing expertise
at their disposal, has made a significant contribution toward the reduc-
tion of auto larcenies in the city of New York during the year 1972.
I thank you for your time and attention.
Mr. Brasco. Lieutenant, I don't know whether it is your area of
jurisdiction specifically, but one of the things that I find particularly
distressing is in the area of stolen automobiles where those who would
take them for transportation, joyriders, then leave them some place
on the street.
Mr. Hubert. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brasco. If there is an automobile on someone's block for 2 or 3
days, and it hasn't been moAed, and no one is familiar with the auto-
mobile, then I think the average citizen is aware enough to know that,
at that point, it is probably a stolen automobile.
The car is not taken off' the street and youngsters in the area start to
strip the automobile, and that happens rather quickly. Obviously, two
things happen : the fellow's automobile that might be in good shape
other than just being taken for the joyride is now stripped beyond
repair, many times burned ; but particularly distressing is the fact that
the youngsters who strip the cars wind up as defendants charged with
either petty or grand larceny.
Does your department have the authority to integrate this removal
with the department of sanitation, who I understand has some re-
sponsibility? Also, I understand that there is a contract given out
30
by the city through the police department to private tow operators
who are suppose to take this automobile off the street.
Commissioner Murphy. I am just going to say a word about that,
Congressman. It is true that the department of sanitation has had a
responsibility and the police department has had a responsibility,
and private contractors are involved in taking away the junk cars. We
don't have a perfect system yet, but I do believe there has been a marked
improvement in the past year or two.
The problem is complicated. Some people, as you probably Imow,
abandon cars on the streets. They Avill frequently take the license
plates off. In other words, they won't pay the small fee to have the junk-
man take it off their hands.
I agree with you that, unfortmiately, there have been examples,
and too many of them, of a car in relatively good condition not recov-
ered quickly enough, not taken in off the street, and it has been
attacked and, in short order, is no longer a good car.
There have been some irregularities as well. I think we are improving,
but we don't have the final answer. However, either Chief Cawley or
the lieutenant will probably give you more specific information.
Mr. Hubert. With reference to your question, you imply the young-
ster, upon taking a mirror from the car would "be charged with the
grand larceny of the car?
Mr. BRi\sco. Not of the car but larceny with respect to takino- parts.
Obviously, when the owner of the car is found, and it is a stolen auto-
mobile, he is the complainant. I am not indicating any defense for the
theft of parts from the auto, but it is a great temptation to take some-
thing from an abandoned automobile, particularly in poor
neighborhoods.
There is just no way you can keep the kids away from that automobile
wlien they know it has been sitting there 4 or 5 davs, and it doesn't
belong to anybody in the neighborhood. That is my point.
Mr. Hubert. A lot of times, what happens is they find it cheaper
when they wish to get rid of a vehicle to just leave it where it is, remove
all of the identification and let the vehicle sit.
Initially, when the police patrolman responds, he checks to see
whether logs exist on the particular vehicle. If it is a stolen vehicle,
we can move it right away. If it is not stolen, it goes to the sanitation
program on removal, which sometimes, unfortimately, takes 2, 3,
4, or more days.
But we have a problem storing the vehicles. In the pounds we have
where we store tlie vehicles, space is at a premium at all times.
Mr. Brasco. Could I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman ?
In the same area, another disturbing situation I found when I was
in the district attorney's office in Brooklyn was that when that police
officer Avould apprehend someone in possession of a stolen automobile,
he would lodge charges of grand larceny with respect to the stolen
automobile, uninsured motor vehicle, unregistered vehicle, several
charges with respect to traffic violations.
So that the police officer then is placed in a situation — which never
made any sense to me and I communicated with the district attorney's
offices about it and I tell you about it as it is in your area of juris-
diction— where that police officer now has got to go, if there "is an
indictment, to the supreme court with respect to the grand larceny of
31
the automobile. The misdemeanor charges are left to the criminal
court of the city of New York, and then in Brooklyn, he has to go
over to the comthouse on Pennsylvania Avenue with respect to the
traffic violations.
I found in tliose cases, once it is tried and there is a conviction or
a plea is obtained in the course of conviction, these things are taken
into consideration by the judge in the supreme court; except that what
is happening is it is costing so much time, effort, and money because the
police officer is then running to the criminal courts, and running over
to the Pennsylvania Avenue courthouse in Brooklyn. I have seen
cases where a man has actually gone to prison and when he is let out, he
finds out there is a warrant at the jailhouse waiting for him.
He is picked up and brought back and put into the mill again in the
criminal courts to take care of the misdemeanor or other charges, the
traffic violation, that arose out of one transaction.
It just seems to me a total waste of manpower and money that would
have to be expended to keep that man in the system in three courts.
Mr. Crawley. Mr. Congressman, I would like to respond to that
because much of what you said, the department has recognized. And I
think one of the things we have done in the last 18 months or so is take
a very hard look at the quality of arrests being made in the multiple
auto situation as you just described.
We have instituted central booking facilities in the Bureau of Queens,
Kichmond, and last week in the Bronx, where the quality of arrests and
the — well, almost the validity of the arrest, is it a necessary arrest,
is very caref uly examined. And if it doesn't meet very high standards,
we try to divert it from the system, into some other referral process,
or on some occasions, with the concurrence of the district attorney,
we will go the 343 route. You know what that is. So we are very con-
cerned with that, recognized to be a problem ; and I think we are dealing
with it in a very ongoing sense.
Chairman Pepper. Could we move along, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Commissioner, it is our undei-standin.g then, and
please correct me if I am wrong, that the auto crime unit functions
under the general guidance of the citywide anticrime section and
this adds another capability to that section ?
Unless there are further questions in that regard, I wonder if you
might introduce the young lady at the table and tell us what her
assignment is in your department.
Commissioner JMurphy. Thank you, Mr. Lynch.
With us is Lt. Julia Tucker, who commands the rape analysis
investigation unit, which is a relatively new unit in the New York
City Police Department. Lieutenant Tucker is also assisted by female
detectives.
This unit lias been created for a number of reasons. We were dis-
cussing earlier the problem of unreported crime, and those of us in
police work have been aware for a number of years that one of the
crimes that may be least reported is the crime of rape, for a variety of
reasons.
The victim is embarrassed ; the victim for a number of reasons may
feel that it is a reflection on her in some way, the male police officers
frequently have difficulty in obtaining the cooperation of the female
32
victim because the victim is embarrassed about describing the partic-
ular act involved.
Because we want to devote more attention to this very serious crime,
we looked into some of the problems that exist in connection with the
l^olice depai-tment's approach to the problem, and came to the con-
clusion that it was worth experimenting, at least, with the use of female
detectives for taking the reports, interviewing the victims, and doing
the kind of analysis that would make us more effective in identifying
and apprehending the violators.
Lieutenant Tucker has headed this unit for the past several months.
She in one of our outstanding leaders in the department. I am very
happy to have her with us today. She will describe some of the work
of her unit.
Mr. Brasco. Mr. Chairman, if I might interrupt. At the moment,
there is a quorum call going on. I am wondering whether or not we
could take a 10-minute recess and then we can all hear the lieutenant ?
Chairman Pepper. It is appropriate to take a recess so we can rini
over to answer the quorum call. We will be right back.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Chainnan Pepper. The committee will come to order.
Statement of Julia Tucker
Mr. Lynch. Lieutenant Tucker, I wonder if at this time you could
describe to the members of the committee exactly how it is that your
unit functions within the department and what changes, if any, have
been eft'ected by the presence of your unit ?
Miss Tucker. Well, first of allj I am sure many of you are aware
of the unique problems involved m investigating rape cases. This is a
very personal crime and that woman is \'ery sensitive at the time of
interview, and subsequently. She frequently is too embarrassed to even
report the crime, and I think this was one of the paramount reasons
the commissioner had in establishing the unit. That, coupled with the
fact that the niuTiber of forceful rapes had gone up significantly and
the clearance rate on rape is not, shall we say, as good as we would like
it to be.
These were the main reasons for setting up the unit, which is com-
posed solely of female detectives. First of all, we receive copies of
all complaints made on forcible rape, forcible sodomy, and their
attempts. We I'eview these cases ; we have them coded and keypunched
into a computer in the hope that patterns will be established where
perhaps an individual has raped more than one woman. This has been
found to be true.
Most of the time, if a man rapes once, he will rape over and over
again.
Now, once we have determined a pattern, my woman will go out and
reinterview the victim and hope to obtain additional inf onnation which
may have been lost by the interview with a male officer. We have been
very successful in this regard. Generally, the w^omen will indicate they
were too embarrassed to tell a specific detail ; and we have been fortu-
nate enough to make several apprehensions based just on this type of
information.
We also will take in complaints directly from a female. We have
established a special telephone number — 5tT-RAPE, in the hope that
33
women will I'onipmbor it and if they have a problem, will call us and
o-ive US the details. Since tlie telephone number has been established,,
women have called. In fact, women have called from all over tho
country to demonstrate and to imply to us they were \evy pleased with
the fact a unit such as this w^as established.
In addition to that, we also will <io out whenever a male officer demon-
strates or indicates to us that a female officer is needed. iVIany times
durinir an investiiration by a male officer, they will realize that perhaps
they are not netting all of the details, and if a woman were present,
the' woman would feel more relaxed and then come up with something
she ma V have left out.
In connection with the unit, we have also expanded the concept of
specialization, and male officers are now selected and screened for their
sensitivitv and experience in this area, and work exclusively on rape.
This and'our unit, I think, will really be very effective. In fact, I know
it will be effective.
In addition, in the future, with the assistance of the Police Foun-
dation, we are hoping to perhaps find a model for exactly how to
liandle rape cases. There are many, many problems involved in han-
dling rape. Hospitals, the courts — not the courts, actually, the law,
is rather demanding — and certain evidence must be obtained and if
proper training is not given to the detectives or the officers, aiid to the
public themselves, much evidence is lost which then handicaps the
irivestigation.
I think that is kind of a total of what we are doing and perhaps
if vou liave any questions-
Mr. Lynch. Is your unit funded by the Police Foundation (
Miss Tucker. We have just received Police Foundation funding; yes.
Mr. Lynch. What are those funds for ?
Miss Tucker. Initially, they will be for a research director and
assistant and personnel to help us in the research, in finding the best
way of handling rape cases, and also for various equipment.
We had hoped that perhaps, and we will, actually, have photographs
of rapists on microfilm and my women will be able to go out into the
field with poi'table viewers and let a woman sec all the people that have
been arrested for rape. Many times women are too embarrassed to even
come down to headquartere to view these photographs, and I am quite
sure many cases would be solved if this were possible ; and it is now
possible.
In addition to that, the women are trained in investigative tech-
nifiues and when they go out on an interview they will lift fingeii^rints
if there are any available and they will have composites made, using
identity kits. Hopefully, with the foundation funding, we w^ill get a
new machine. It is called the montage machine — it is quite unique,
actually. It is kind of an advance identity kit.
In tiiis machine you will be able to take pait of a photograph,
]-»erhaps a chin of an individual, or a nose, and put them all together;
and yon are able to see a clear picture, or at least have a very good
picture of who you are looking for.
]Much of tlie' money will be going to equipment that will help us in
our investigative techniques.
]\Ir. Lynch. Since your unit was created, has there been an increase
in the number of repoited rapes within New York City ?
34
Miss Tucker. Yes, there has been. I would say approximately a
20-percent increase, which we were hoping for and anticipating.
Because, of course, unless we get a clear picture of exactly how many
rapes are being committed, we can never really deploy our people the
way we should. I am hoping that more and more women will con-
tact us. Because I don't feel it is actually there are more rapists; 1
think the same number of rapists are just raping more women.
Mr. Lynch. To what do you attribute the increase in the nmnber
of reported rapes? Have you publicized the existence of your unit?
Miss Tucker. Oh, yes ; I have been on television several times, and
in the newspapers. We have tried to reach community council meetings
and various community groups, women's liberation groups; actually,
as many people as I can possibly get hold of, in order to allow women
and let women know that we are here to help them.
Mr. Lynch. Lieutenant Tucker, several weeks ago you told some
members of our investigatory staff that one of the functions of this
unit would be to serve as a central intelligence data-gathering unit.
I wonder if you could explain to the committee what vou mean by
that ?
Miss Tucker. As I mentioned before, all of the cases are coded. "VVe
have set up a special coding syst-em and it goes into the complete phys-
ical description of the individual, the modus operandi, and anything
else that is miique about the person.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me just a minute. We have another vote
on the floor. We will have to take a recess so we can run over and vote.
Corjiiaissioner, I understand you have to leave at 1 o'clock?
Commissioner Murphy. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 1 am sorry, but I must
get back; but Chief Cawley will stay here and the other members of
the department.
Chainnan Pepper. Will you be able to come back after lunch?
Commissioner Murphy. I am sorry ; I won't be able to.
Chairman Pepper. Well, I will miss the vote. I want to ask the com-
missioner about a few tilings that could be done other than is being
done now.
How much Federal aid have j'ou received for the New York City
Police Department ?
Commissioner Murphy. We have received approximately $10
million. That is my recollection, Mr. Chairman. We can get a precise
figure for the record. Of course, we have a very large budget from city
funds.
[The information referred to above was not received.]
Chairman Pepper. About what percentage is that of the total expend-
itures that you make for the police department of New York?
Commissioner Murphy. It would be less than 1 percent.
Chairman Pepper. Let's just suppose that Congress would make
available substantial additional funds and suppose you could get
substantial additional funds from the city of New York. How would
you employ those funds in order to further reduce crime in the city
of New York?
Commissioner Murphy. If we had large additional funds, Mr.
Chairman, we would have many more officers in miiform in our pre-
cincts ; we would probably increase this unit, which we are thinking of
doing now; and we would put officei-s in any number of other assign-
35
nients. But we, would have greater visible patrol if we had sufficient
fundin<r.
(Miaiinian Peppp:!?. You, in your opening statement referred to the
bottleneck, or the obstacle, of the prosecutino- attorneys and the couits.
I saw in the Times a statement by District Attorney Monrola of
the Bronx that if he didn't do anythino; but prosecute murder cases in
the next year, it would take all of the time that he had. Would you
think that might be true ?
Commissioner MuRmr. A very small percentage, less than 5 percent
of those indicted for felonies in his county, as I recall it, are brought
to trial.
Cliairman Peppee. So he said, under the pressure that he bears, that
he has to have plea bargaining in order to make any progress at all in
the disposition of his court docket.
Commissioner Murppiy. Well, I agree with that; and I would never
propose, doing away with plea bargaining, Mr. Chairman. But I am
not sure that 95 or 96 percent of the cases should be plea bargained.
Chairman Pepper. If there were additional monej% the prosecuting
attorney area would also be one which would well be the subject of
additional funding?
Commissioner Ml-rphy. Oh, yes. And, in New York City, we ad-
mittedly are permitting a greater share of the funds to go to the courts
and prosecutors and corrections, rather than the police department,
because that is Avhere the need is greatest, I believe.
Chairman Pepper. Do police officers feel such a degree of frustration
in tlie disposition of cases because of the delay of the courts in dis-
posing of the cases ?
Commissioner jNIurphy. Oh, yes. We have been frustrated because
the courts are unable to hold enough trials to expedite the handlmg of
serious cases, and they just don't have the capacity, it seems, to deal
with the volume of Avork we take in.
Chairman Pepper. In thinlving about hoAv we can further reduce
crime, in addition to the excellent job you have done by these innova-
tiA'C procedures you are revealing here today, a great deal of additional
help is needed in the area of the prosecuting attorney's offices and the
area of the courts ?
Commission.er ]Murphy. Yes. I believe that.
Chairman Pepper. The same thing applies to the area of corrections.
The Chief Justice of the Uiiited States, speaking in New Yorl: a
year or 2 ago. stated that 75 percent of the people who are confined
in our correctional institutions are returned Avithin a relatively shoit
time after release for having committed another crime.
Do you regard our correctional system today, with its inadequa-
cies and imperfections, as being a serious contributor to the crime
we liaA'e today?
Commissioner Murphy. Yes; I do. I think Ave are not correcting
people or helping them. I Avouldn't certainly put all of the blame
on the correctional institutions, but they don't have the funding to do
many of the things they should be doing; and there are lots of prob-
lems about finding work for people Avhen they leave institutions.
Chairman Pepper. As I recall, Avhen our' connnittee went up to
Attica, the Friday of the weelv in Avhich the tragedy occurred. Gover-
nor Rockefeller said, "I knoAv just as Avell as anylDody that Ave need
to improve and modernize the jn-ison system of Xcav York/'
36
But he turned, I believe it was to Senator Dunn who, I believe, was
chairman of the legislative committee on crime, and he said, "I be-
lieve it would cost $100 million." I believe the senator said perhaps
$200 million to modernize completely the correctional system of New
York.
You have your Attica, we have our Raiford in Florida, a great
State prison, 50 or 100 percent overcrowded, out in the rural area,
where there is no opportunity for halfway houses or job employment.
You would put great emphasis on improving the correctional system
also. You police, no matter how good a job you do, can't do it all. You
have to have the cooperation of these other units in the administra-
tion of the justice system .
Commissioner Murphy. Definitely, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. How adequately would you say the public au-
thority is able to deal with the drug problem in the city of New York ?
How adequate is the present treatment and rehabilitation program
in respect to the drug addiction problem in relation to the crime you
have in New York City ?
Commissioner Murphy. Well, during the past year or two we have
seen a marked increase in the number of addicts being treated. There
are now 58,000 addicts in treatment in New York City, and it may
very well be this helps to explain the decrease in crime last year in
New York, because addicts who are depending upon crime to support
their habits commit a great amount of crime.
Chairman Pepper. You say about 53,000 addicts are being treated ?
Commissioner Murphy. That is correct. Yes.
Chairman Pepper. How many addicts do you estimate there are in
the city of New York ?
Commissioner Murphy. Estimates range from 100,000 to perhaps
150,000. Some would estimate higher.
Chairman Pepper. It may well be that no more than half of the
drug addicts of New York City are being included in treatment and
rehabilitation programs of today ?
Commissioner Murphy. That would be a good estimate, I think.
Chairman Pepper. And if there were additional treatment and re-
habilitation facilities available, do you think that would also tend
to reduce crime in the city of New York ?
Commissioner Murphy. I think so. I think we must face the fact
that the addict needs treatment; that a jail or a prison is not the place
to cure an addict. When he leaves, all the experience seems to tell
us he will go back to crime and back to the use of drugs.
Chairman Pepper. There must be an enormous amount of property
stolen in this country every year. That must run into the hundreds of
millions, if not into the billions of dollars. I know my wife and I
lost several thousand dollars' worth of our property, including a car
right in front of our home, and we never heard anything about it.
Itis going on all the time.
Must not there be a system of fences? Somebody has to dispose
of that property. These robbers, these burglars, they want money. If
they are drug addicts they want money to buy a drug. They have
to dispose of that property rather soon.
What has been your experience as to a system of professional fences
that exist in your area and probably exist in the country? Is there such
a thing ?
37
Commissioner Murpjiv. I certainly believe there are fences; and
when we are successful in identifying one, it may help us to recover
a great deal of stolen property and to solve a great deal of crime. I
am sorry to have to say, though, too many thieves are able to sell their
stolen nierehandise right on the streets of our city. I am also sorry to
say, many businesses, thought of as legitimate, will purchase the
stolen property.
So 1 think the fence plays a part, but I don't think he is the whole
answer.
Chairman Pepper. In respect to organized crime, do you think that
there is more that we can do than we are now doing to reach the top
people who deal in the drug business, or wlio are in the drug traffic?
Commissioner Mltrpiiy. Mr. Chairman, I think in New York City
we have a motto. In fact, Mr. Ambrose has been kind enough to say
that the arrangement we have in New York City of our department
workmg on a day-to-day basis, as a matter of fact the same units and
the same officers with the Federal agents, is the ideal arrangement
because investigations can then be prosecuted either under the Federal
laws or the State laws, and for other reasons as well; exchange of
intelligence information being one example. It is highly desirable there
be a close working relationship.
I don't think we are doing all we can do, but I think we are improv-
ing and I think we are reaching people at higher levels.
For example, in our department last year. Mayor Lindsay approved
an appropriation to us of $1.25 million for information and "buy"
money for narcotics. Previously, we had only a fraction of that amouiit,
and as a practical matter, to reach the higher level people in the drug
traffic, "buy'" money is needed in large amounts.
I think we can do nuich more, but I am not optimistic that we will
ever be able to totally stop the illegal drug trade while the profits
remain as great as they are. People will take risks.
Chairman Pepper. Would you say the authorities. Federal, State, or
local to a relative moral certainty, are aware of who are the top orga-
nized crime figures in the drug traffic?
Commissioner Murphy. AVell, I think, Mr. Chairman, we have good
intelligence and good information about who many of the top-level
l^eople are. It is extremely difficult to make strong cases against many
of them because the higher they are in the structiu^e the more they
seem to operate far removed from the drugs and the money, and they
ai'e hard to reach.
Chairman Pepper. T don't know whetlier you heard of it or not, but
we are going to have a witness l)efore this committee who is a profes-
sor at a university in this country, who has the theory that I have
entertained for some time. The theory is that we might be able to use
the injunctive process against some of these figures when we have a
moral certainty they are the top figures, or among the top figures, of
organized crime in the traffic in drugs, but are not able to convict
beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case, on the theory that it
would be analogous to enjoining the violation of antitrust laws. You
can get an injunction against violating some of the antitrust laws,
which is a ci-iminal oifense.
This professor's theory is all of you people together, the Federal,
State, and local people, would ha\e enough evidence to go before a
38
Federal judge and make a prima facie case that "X" was indeed one
of the hierarchy of the traffic in drugs and he would be enjoined by
that judge and a prima facie case made by the authorities from par-
ticipating in such an activity.
Then if he were later on found to be still trafficking, it would be
easier to find enough evidence to get the judge to find him giiilty of
contempt of court than it would be evidence that would convict him
beyond a reasonable doubt in the criminal court. If something like
that could be worked out, it would give you all a new weapon ; would
it not?
Commissioner Murphy. Yes. I think that might have considerable
potential, because we need all of the tools that we can get that will
work for us.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Murphy, if you will just take a minute more,
our chief counsel, Mr. Nolde, would like to ask you a question.
Mr. NoLDE. Commissioner Murphy, your citywide anticrime unit is^
of course, doing a tremendous job in specializing in the kind of street
crime attack that we have heard about today. It has been proposed that
the police sliould be free from liaving to deal with gambling and pros-
titution and mariliuana possession, so as to permit officers to concen-
trate on street crime.
What is your response toward that proposal ?
Commissioner Mitrphy. Well. I think we can't ignore those crimes,
as^ difficult as enforcement of those laws may be ; because organized
crime figures are involved in those crimes and make enormous profits.
I don't tliink there is anv way we can separate street crime from oi'ffa-
nized crime, because they are very closely related, as a matter of fact;
an outstanding example being narcotics. While organized crime peo-
ple are getting rich in the narcotics traffic, the addict is committing
street crime every day.
I certainly am pleased tliat Ave liave offtrack betting, legalized off-
track betting in New York City, and perhaj^s some "more forms of
gambling should be legalized, because the gambling laws are quite un-
enforceable- But while those things are illegal and the profits are
enormous, organized crime will be in those areas of activity.
So we try to strike a balance between what percentage of our re-
sources are applied to organized crime enforcement, and what per-
centage to the patrol and other functions, and what percentage to anti-
crime work. But we are aware that there are some who feel little or
none of the resources should be applied to organized crime. I disagree
with that.
Mr. NoLDE. But if we legalized some of these activities, would it not,
in fact, eliminate some of the organized crime problem ?
Commissioner Murphy. Indeed. I think, as a matter of fact, the
situation in New York State and New York City for many yeare has
boon hypocriticnl. We continue to have laws on the books' that the
people do not believe in. Few, it seems to me a minority of New York
City residents, for years have thought gambling to be immoral or
wrong, and yet the laws were there and it kept the police officer in the
middle.
Shortly after becoming police commissioner, I publicly stated we
would not enforce the blue laws, the Sabbath laws. There had been
corruption, abuses, as part of the enforcement work of the depart-
39
ment, and we just stopped that. Now, we do enforce tlie laws when
there are complaints and circumstances call for it, but it is another
example of the dilemma of the police.
Now, I certainly don't believe in le^^alized prostitution, but perhaps
the criminal law is not the best weapon against prostitution. We may
devise some strategies under the civil law. We may begin to under-
stand that the prostitute may be more a victim than a criminal, if
you will, and that she needs to be dealt with as a sick person.
And certainly it is my belief that the history of this Nation, in
dealing with the narcotics problem, has been a history of hypocrisy
in that we have attempted to solve the problem by the use of the
criminal law, that the criminal law can never solve.
I am delighted, with in the past couple of years, the Federal Gov-
ernment has finally tipped the balance, in spending more money now
in treatment than on enforcement of the narcotics laws. I certainly
conmiend the President for that. I think it is fair to say it is a law
and order administration. I am delighted to see enlightenment in the
treatment of addicts.
jMr. NoLDE. On that point, what is your reaction to Governor Rocke-
feller's proposed mandatory life sentence without parole for convicted
hard- drug pushers ^
Commissioner Murphy. That proposal is not practical. It wouldn't
work. The district attorney would have his hands tied. It would be
more difficult to obtain convictions, I believe, and the district attorney
would be unable to use what is the standard weapon of the district
attorney; that is, to deal, with one person involved in a criminal
conspiracy, in order to get convictions against people at higher levels.
So I don't think that is a i^ractical matter.
One thing it fails to do is distinguish between the addict pusher
and the nonaddict pusher. I think it is impossible to be too severe on
the nonaddict drug trafficker who gets rich on human misery and
death. But the addict who pushes is another breed, it seems to me,
and we must make that distinction. The Governor's proposal, it seems
to me, does not make that distinction.
Mr. NoLDE. Thank you Commissioner Murphy, for your very infor-
mative testimony here, which is but one more basis for your eminent
reputation as this Nation's most professional and progressive police
commissioner.
Commissioner Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Nolde.
Chairman Pepper. Gentlemen, Mr. ]Murphy has to go.
Do you have an}^ other questions ?
Mr. Brasco?
Mr. Brasco. Getting back to something, I suppose called the vice
squad. Is there still such a concept, Commissioner, or did you change
that ?
Commissioner Murphy. No. We never in my memory had a unit
called a vice squad. Gambling and prostitution has been dealt with
by the plainclothes unit, as we always called them.
Mr. Brasco. When I was in the DA's office, unless it got that name
attached to it without being officially entitled, it was Imown as the
vice squad.
Conmiissioner Murphy. I assume they owe that to the headquarters
plainclothesmen.
95-158— 73— pt. 1 4
40
Mr. Brasco. Eio;ht. I always felt the department placed too much
emphasis on the gambling and prostitution end of it, and I felt it
created more problems than it solved.
Did I understand you to say, in placing deemphasis in this area,
you reduced the complement of that sc|uad ?
Commissioner Murphy. What I did say v,as that I feel that the
police department has been in the middle and continues to be in the
middle in being expected to enforce gambling laws that citizens don't
lielieve in. We have fewer officers assigned to gambling enforcement
now. We are making fewer arrests, but we are striving for higher
quality arrests; and we are striving to reach people at higher levels
rather than the street runner from the lowest level of bookmaking.
Mr. Brasco. It has been^I don't know whether it is still the
[jolicy — that tlie activity of a police officer was determined by tlie
number of arrests he made, not the number of convictions he obtained.
Conunissioner Murphy. We have changed that, Congressman. It
v/as commonly known as tlie sheet, and the sheet is dead, we like to
say, and under a new arrangement.
You see, the gambling enforcement pre\'iously was under each
patrol division and bureau conunancler. It no longer is; it is now in
the organized crime patrol billet under Deputy Commissioner William
]McCarthy, and I believe he has succeeded in eliminating the quota
system and sheet, and people are evaluated on the quality of their
work, even if they don't make arrests.
Mr. Brasco. I am very ghid to hear that. I thought j^ou were moving
in that direction. I wasn't completely up to date.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Eangel.
Mr. IiANGEL. Just one question in terms of the investigation to the
pro])erty clerk matter.
Other cities are having similar type problems in maintaining con-
trol over Avhat is confiscated. Who is finallv in charge of that investioa-
tion? There was some problem between the city office and the State.
Commissioner Murphy. The special prosecutor, Mr. Nadjari.
Mr. Rangel. He finally assumed jurisdiction?
Commissioner Murphy. Yes ; he did.
Mr. Eangel. Again, I want to thank you for coming down here and
helping us wrestle with problems otlier cities are having. We certainly
commend you for the wonderful job you have done in restructuring
and redirecting the police department in New York.
Commissioner Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. I appreciate
your support on some of our common interests in narcotic enforcement.
Mr. Eangel. And our conflict in other areas.
Commissioner Murphy. It is a pleasure.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Lynch, do you have any other questions ?
Mr. Lynch. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. INIurph}', I want to extend, on behalf of the
committee our very deep obligation for your coming here and helping
us so valuably as you have. You are one of tlie oustanding men in the
world, in my opinion, in law enforcement. We are very grateful to
have you dedicated to what you have been doing in the New York area
as an exam])le for the Nation. We hope you can get some more help
to do even more than you have been doing in the past.
Thank you.
41
Commissioner Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is alwaj^s a
pleasure to work with you.
Chairman Pepper. We will take a recess until -1 o'clock.
[Whereupon, at 1 :10 p.m., the hearing in the above matter was re-
cessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. this same day.]
AracRNOON Session
PANEL OF NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICIALS— Resumed
CAWLEY, DONALD F., CHIEF OF PATROL SERVICES;
CROWLEY, ROBERT L., SERGEANT, NEIGHBORHOOD PATROL
TEAM COMMANDER ;
EISDORFER, SIMON, DEPUTY CHIEF INSPECTOR, SPECIAL OPER-
TIONS;
FREEMAN, ARTHUR A., DEPUTY INSPECTOR;
LUHRS, ROBERT E., DEPUTY INSPECTOR;
ROGAN, JOHN F., DEPUTY INSPECTOR ;
SIEGEL, JOSEPH, INSPECTOR, AUXILIARY POLICE; AND
TUCKER, JULIA, LIEUTENANT, RAPE INVESTIGATION AND
ANALYSIS SECTION
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
I believe vou wanted Lieutenant Tucker back, ]Mr. Lynch ?
]\Ir. Lyxch. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. You may proceed, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Lieutenant Tucker, just before we broke for lunch, you
were describing- to the members of the committee the intelliijence func-
tions which your new unit will be perlormino-,
I wonder if you could summarize that tesitmony for us, please.
Miss Tucker. We take each particular complaint, review that case,
and we look for certain information, which we then code and keypunch
to have stored in the computer. The type of information we glean from
the reports are relevant to the particular perpetrator's ciescription, his
complete physical description, his clothing at the time, anything
unique or diii'erent about his ai)i>earance ; also, his method of operation,
the M.O. Also, various details about the victim.
It is felt, perhaps, if we cannot get a pattern just based on the in-
dividual perpetrator's description, or ]\LO. we might be able to find
that he is selecting a certain type victim.
This is the basic type of" information we are gathering from the
various complaints ^^•Bhave received.
In addition to that, we also map or chart each pattern case on a
citvwide map, feeling that perhaps Ave might be able to get some pat-
tern that way, or at least be able to distinguish where he may strike
again
Mr. Lynch. Do you send intelligence information out to precincts
within the city I
]^Iiss Tucker. Well, at the present this information is available on a
need-to-know or call basis. However, in the future, as we grow, I would
like to disseminate the information out to the field commands, to the
■ district coimuands.
42
Mr, Lyxch. Lieutenant, it was your testimony this morning that
tlie crime of rape is a crime that is difficult to get convictions on, for
a number of reasons ; is that correct ?
]Miss Tucker. Yes ; it is.
Mr. Lynch. So that the intelligence function that your unit does
serve, or is attempting to serve — giving minute details about certain
things about the ]3erpetrator — would be especially useful in locating,
apprehending, ixv.d trying rapists ; is that correct?
Miss TucKEK. It is our hope ; yes. I think the more information we
can gather, the better our chances will be in getting a conviction.
In addition to that, also we have to learn the type of evidence we
must bring to court. There are many situations of thing's we might not
have been knowledgeable about previously that might just be able to
be utilized in getting a conviction.
Mr. Lyncpi. I wonder if 3^ou would tell us how r.iany reported rape
cases have there been in New York City since the first of this year i
Miss Tttcker. Up to date, we handled approximately 1,000 cases.
Mr. Lynch. That is somewhat higher than is normal ; is that correct ?
Miss Tucker. Yes. It is about 20 percent over last year.
Mr. Lynch. I have no further questions of the witness, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Lieutenant Tucker, what is the penalty for rape
in the State of New York ?
Miss Tucker. It is a class B felony, and you get up to 25 years.
Chairman Pepper. Ordinarily, how long do they stay in prison be-
foi'c they are paroled ?
Miss Tucker. If a conviction is obtained, I would say about T years.
Chairman Pepper. About 7 years ?
Miss Tucker. That is the length of time I heard that most of them
are doing.
Chairman Pepper. Have you heard of there being repeaters among
the rapists once they are released from prison?
Miss Tucker. Yes; many times. This crime seems to lend itself to
recidivism and generally, if a man is arrested and sent away, when
he comes back out he is often again arrested for rape.
Chairman Pepper. If a man is con^-icted a second time of rape in
New York, what sentence will he ordinarily get? Is there a separate
statutory offense provided ?
Miss Tucker. You mean would he do a longer period of time if he
were arrested a second time on this ? No.
Chairman Pepper. For a second offense, the punislunent wouldn't
go up or anj^thing ?
]Miss Tucker. Nothing of this type.
Chairman Pepper. The same way if he were convicted a third time
of rape, the sentence again would be as an ordinary rapist?
Miss Tucker. If he was considered as a three-time offender, a multi-
felony offender, then lie would get life. But that does not happen too
frequently. And as I said before, it is very, very difficult to get a con-
viction on this type of crime.
Chairman Pepper. Other than some sort of emasculation, is there
any treatment for oversexed people, or for a perverted mind ? Is there
any medical treatment, comparable to the treatment you give a drug
addict, that would be of any help ?
43
Miss Tucker. There appear to be two different types of rapist. One
is someone who actually does need some type of medical, or shall avq
say mental, treatment and the other appears to be a fairly normal
individual who perhaps is a little bit more violent than your everyday
personality and seems to take out his drive in this way.
But he is apparently not sick ; and treatment, I don't think under
these circumstances, will really benefit him.
Chairman Pepper. Have you any other suggestions to make as to
how the police departments of the country could better deal with the
problem of rape?
Is there anything more you could do if you had more money?
Miss Tucker. As far as treatment of the rapist ?
Chairman I^epper. Any aspect of the crime of rape or to deter the
crime of rape ?
Miss Tucker. What we are going to be doing and, of course, the
more money we have the more involved we could become in this, is to
actually go through each particular step.
The hospital is an area which definitely needs attention. The treat-
ment sliould be unified as far as every hospital wherever you would
take a rape victim, should be standardized. They should take certain
tests from the woman and treat her in a particular manner.
One of the biggest complaints I have had from victims of rape is the
treatment they received at the various hospitals, more than even many
people indicate, the fact the male officer may be insensitive, have a
traumatic reaction to a woman. However, this I have seen very
rarely in New York and it has been 3 months I have been working in
this field, and I can actually say there has only been one situation where
an indication of insensitivity on the part of a male officer was expressed
to me.
However, there were many indications that treatment in hospitals
was very negative, shall I say.
^Ir. Cawley. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that it is precisely those
questions you have raised that we hope to be able to arrive at answers
to, and which led to the development of this very unit. There is a great
deal of ignorance and lack of knowledge concerning the crime of rape.
"We don't have a profile of a rapist: we vrould certainly hope that
part of that Federal project and the funding ])roject we are going-
through Avill put us in a better position throughout the Nation, all
police agencies, as to how to better deal with the problem of rape.
Chairman Pepper. Chief, by the way, are all offenders, anyone who
commits an offense, perpetrates a felony anywhere in the country,
recorded in the FBI computer system so that any police department in
the country can check up immediately on whether anybody has an
arrest or conviction record and. if so, for wliat ?
Mr. Cawley. Any fingerprintable crime would be eventually
recorded in the FBI crime statistic sheets, and we would become
knowledgeable about it. It may take a day or two in order to get the
information, but we would get the information.
Chairman Pepper. I have heard of instances at home of Avhere a
judge would l)e about to pass sentence on a convicted person and would
find out that person was before another court for trial on another
charge, or had lieen convicted in another court or courts of other of-
fenses. I know the probation officers ordinarily are supposed to check
44
up, but a lot of times they don't seem to know about it by the time
they begin the prosecution of the case.
You mean only a felony is finoerprinteil ? People charged Avith a
felony, are they ahvays fingerprinted when they are arrested.
Mr. Cawley. Yes ; they are.
Chairman Pepper. And they go into the FBI files ?
Mr. Cawlet. They go in from Xew Yoi-k ; yes.
Chairman Pepper. And you can get those very quickly from the
FBI when the case comes up ?
Mr. Cawley. I am not certain about the amount of time, the turn-
around time in getting the information, but it is a reasonably short
period of time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. One other question, Lieutenant Tucker.
Of course serious consequences may derive to the victim of rape:
Possibly venereal disease, pregnancy, and the like.
Is there any public assistance available to a rape victim under those
circumstances ?
Miss Tucker. The hospital treatment that I mentioned provides this-
type of service to the woman, where antipregnancy shots and shots-
against venereal disease are administered to the woman. At least in
New York this is part of the hospital treatment, in most of the hospi-
tals. And that is the treatment we are hoping will be administered in
every hospital in the city.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Wiggins.
Mr. Wiggins. Lieutenant Tucker, why don't you gcit convictions ?
Miss Tucker. First of all, the corroboration requii'oment in Xew
York is such that it becomes very difiicult to get a conviction. The-
law requires that at least some cii'cumstantial evidence be presented
to support the woman's allegation that she has been raped.
Frequently, what happens in this type of crime is there is no one-
around to see the attack take place, and if there is no medical con-
firmation that a rape took place, there cannot be a conviction on the
rape at all witliout medical corroboration. And this becomes a prob-
lem.
Mr. Wiggins. Well, rape, as you know, is a conmion law crime
involving the nonconsejitua] act of intercourse. Usually, the difficul-
ties invohed are the issue of consent and the issue of peneti'ation.
Would it be easier, in your judgment, if legislative bodies would
abandon this common law notion and merely address themselves to
a sexual assault and make that the crime, without the difficulty of
proving some of the elements of a common law oifense of rape '.
Miss Tucker. I think that might be easier and it might direct the
problem. Because at present it is ^"ery, very difficult to get a conviction
because of this corroboration requirement.
It has been brought to my attention by many of the women's groups
that they feel perhaps the law sliould be the same for every crime, that
the defendant has ways of protecting his own rights that the law has
built in, and that they should be given the same opportunity, and that
corroboration shoulfl not l)o required in this ty])e of criiue.
Mr. Wiggins. Well, so long as a consentual act is not an oliVnse — •
and in most States simple fornication is not a crime — it does take
something to negate the defendant's assertion that the young lady
consented to his overtures and perhaps some corroboration is in order.
45
It has ahvays botliered mo that wo put the A'ictim throiioh tho ordeal
of tostifiyno- to tlio iiiinuto details of a sexual assault in order to prove
something that comes down to us from the middle ages; namely, that
an act of penetration in fact occurred, when that really doesn't go to
tho gist of society's interest in this matter.
A person has been subjected to a daiigerous, liumiliating assanlt
that may or may not have involved penetration. That doesn't lessen
tlie offense to my mind one bit. And insofar as you make recommenda-
tions to legislative bodies who enact these State laws, I would urge
upon you to recommend to them that the}' consider abandoning this
historic burden which we place upon victims and prosecutors ; namely,,
proving penetration.
Miss Tucker. Yes.
Mr. WiGGixs. Do 3'ou think that is a good idea. Chief?
Mr. Cawt^ey. Yes; I think anything that would minimize the diffi-
culties that women encounter in trying to describe the details of that
crime would certainly be beneficial. Anything that we can do — and
that is one of the purposes of instituting the unit itself — to make it
Aery easy for a woman to speak with a woman abont a very intimate
act and very intimate crime. I think it would be beneficial.
]Mr. Wiggins. I missed the earlier part of your testimony on this
subject, but I gather the thrust of it is you want to make it easier for
the victim to relate the circumstances and you think it is easier if she
speaks directly to a woman about these circumstances.
I think most police calls are made to males and a male ]iolice officer
may respond in the first instance. Is that the case typically of a rape
situation ?
Mr. Caaat^ey. That is true.
Mr. "WiCtGins. Do your policies indicate that tho police officer on the
scene, Avhen confronted with a possible rape or at least the allegation
of one, does nothing at that point and takes the J'oung lady into a
secluded place for a woman to iterrogate her?
Mr. Caavley. Xo; Ave have not gone in that direction, nor do we
intend to. If I can just back up for a moment : The creation of the imit
Avas designed to accomplish seA^eral different objectiA^es, one of them
being the woman could communicate with a woman much more easily.
Another, and very important part of it, is the study and the
identification of patterns of the^e crimes and, hopefully, identifying
individuals who are multiple offenders.
So quite a bit of the energies currently vested in Lieutenant Tucker's
operation is to analyze the patterns of crime and study Avhere they
occur, Avith the hope of identifying the people responsible for it.
The male detectiA^e Avho receives the complaint initially does con-
duct the investigation. The complaint report is forAvarded to Lieu-
tenant Tucker's rape analysis section Avhere they try to ])ull together
pictures, overall jiicturos. and they do folloAv up on selected bases at
the moment ; and hojjefully we will have the capability at some point
in time of a followup interA'ioAV in all instances.
Mr. AViGGixs. One of the things about rai)e that has troubled me
is that it is not an offense that one would expect organized crime to be
in\'olA'ed in. You would think it would be pretty much a function of
population ; that is, out of OA^ery 100.000 people, there Avould be so many
rapes, and it Avould be pretty constant around the countiy.
46
But it is not. Two and a half times more rape per 100,000 population
occurs in my city of Los Angeles than occurs in Cincinnati. How
would von account for that ? i • o
Mr. Cawley. It is a very difficult problem to get to. I thnik one ot
the major problems has been a number of rapes have not been re-
ported. Just why people might be more willing to report a rape that
occurred in Los" Angeles as opposed to Cincinnati, or any place else,
is difficult to answer.
I am not sure whether your first statement might not be correct;
it would be reasonable to assume in a given population group there
might be x percent of those people who would be involved in that
crime.
Mr. Wiggins. If that is true, the difference in statistics is simply a
difference in the reporting of crime, not in their actual incidence. That
may be the case. It may be your procedures will produce a dramatic
increase in the incidence of rape reported to you and, of couree, the
numerical incidence of rape may, in fact, remain the same.
Mr. Cawley. We expect to receive a substantial increase in the num-
ber of rape reports. The preliminary and early indications are that
we are getting more complaint reports. A lot of them are coming di-
rectly into Lieutenant Tucker's office, which I think is significant, in
that "that might have been a rape that would not have been reported
had we not provided the female with the means of reporting it.
Mr. Wiggins. Thank you, Chief.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Winn.
Mr. Winn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Lieutenant Tucker, "do the reports that you get on rape come from
any specific area ? In other words, from certain districts where there
is known high usage of drugs, high usage of alcohol, et cetera.
Miss Tucker. I would say, generally, it is spread out almost evenly.
There are, of course, some areas in the city where I think it is prob-
ably more densely populated, but the number of rapes are also higher.
However, there does not seem to be any link with narcotics or
alcoholism.
Mr. Winn. Would it be more prevalent in the low-income areas,
middle-income areas, or high-income areas : or is it pretty well spread ?
Miss Tucker. As I said before, it is pretty well spread around.
There do seem to be areas where it is higher. Trenchant groups are
a little higher than other areas. But then again, it is pretty evenly
distributed.
Mr. Winn. Is there a tie between rape and robbery?
Miss Tucker. There are many rapes that are connected with rob-
beries. I wonder at times if perhaps that is also increasing. What might
possibly happen is if an individual realizes that he is going to get away
with raping a woman and he breaks into her house or is robbing her,
he feels he has nothing to lose.
Mr. Winn. Would there be any tie between Avhat may have started
out as a rape and ended up in murder ?
Miss Tucker. Well, we have homicides that are connected but, you
know, not all that many, really.
Mr. Winn. It would be hard to tell, too, i^robably.
Mr. Cawley, you made a statement a minute ago that I don't quite
understand. You said you have these meetings and you pull together
wath overall pictures.
47
I don't know what you mean. You mean tlie vague image of the word
"picture"' or actual photo-type pictures ^
Mr. Caavley. I am sorry. I should cLarify that. I am talking about the
rape analysis unit receiving copies of all of these rape complaints
that are received throughout the city. In an elfort to identify whether
or not there is a concentration of rapes in a particular area, with the
view of trying to identify whether one or two people might be respon-
sible for that particular concentration of crime. So when I talk about
pictures of crime, I am talking about the concentrated patterns of
crime.
Mr. Winn. You are talking about patterns ?
Mr. Caw^ley. Rather than pictures.
Mr. Winn. Do you use actual photo-type pictures of those who
might be known rapists in those areas, if the pattern develops ?
Mr. Caavley. Maybe I can ask Lieutenant Tucker to respond to that.
She did earlier at the first session.
Mr. Winn. I am sorry. I would like that.
Miss Tucker. If we see a pattern develop, what I generally will do
is have the women go out and reinterview all of the victims of that
particular pattern. For instance, if we feel there may be 10 cases that
the same perpetrator has committed, one of my women will go out and
reinterview all of the women, hoping to gather additional information.
During the coui'se of these interviews they will make composites up
there, or they will bring the women down to our latent section and
have them view photographs of all known rapists.
They may also even hook them into burglaries and various other
crimes that may be connected. If an individual is quite young, the
perpetrator, frequently he may have been arrested for auto thefts. The
girls ar© trained investigators so they are familiar with the various
other crimes that might be connected wnth the rape, and therefore
try and utilize everything they can to link these cases to a perpetrator.
Mr. Winn. We have read recently, from time to time, about the
pros and cons of having women police on the streets, dressed as sexy
womeUj to entice men of this type, or maybe just men in general.
I suppose that is where the controversy comes in — leading a man
on the street to believe that that woman is available, either for prostitu-
tion or pickup. Are you involved, or are any of your policewomen in-
volved, in this and what is your thinking on whether this is construc-
tive or whether it hurts the image of the police department?
Miss Tucker. We don't utilize our women in this way.
First of all, I think it would not be too effective. You could have a
girl on the street for months and have no one bother her, actually.
Mr. Winn. In New York ?
Miss Tucker. True. In New York, too. I have lived in the city all
my life and I have never been attacked.
Mr. Winn. I didn't mean attacked. I mean propositioned; and I
suppose it is harder for a man to figure out if it is a prostitute in New
York, or a girl that wants to be picked up. But I can't believe a gal
can walk the streets of New York very long without an attempt being
made, which might result in an assault or a rape.
Miss Tucker. As I said before, I don't utilize the women in that
regard, especially in the rape area. And I am not involved with the
other section of having women out relative to the prostitution com--
plaints, et cetera.
48
Mr. Winn. But the New York Police Department does have a group
of women out in that field; like Washington, D.C., did for a while?
Mr. Cawley. I would like to respond to that rather than the
lieutenant. .
On occasion we have used policewomen decoys in the Times Square
area to deal with particular problems, but it is not a program that is
an ongoing program.
Mr. Winn. Wait a minute. Would you clarify what those particular
problems are, and then we would like to find out what your results are.
Mr. Cawley. Well, for example, if we had a problem in the Times
Square community, as we will on occasion, where we received informa-
tion that a procurer might be looking to approach a young lady and
convert her, if you will, into prostitution we will put out a female
detective in that location to see whether or not that is or is not a fact.
That is one type of decoy that we might use, and have used.
Another type would be where we want to emphasize the fact that
the penal law in the State of New York also has a penal sanction for
the patronizer of a prostitute. We will put out, and have on occasion,
these women to see whether or not they are solicited and in fact taken
to a location for an act of prostitution. We have used that on occasion.
Now, as I said, it is not a long-range program ; it is generally insti-
tuted on a short-term basis. I am not conversant with the results of
the program so I could not give you statistics.
Mr. Winn. I think it is very interesting along the lines that Mr.
Wiggins brought up— and I am not defending Watergate, believe
me— but we have, according to your remarks that I heard just as I
came in — convictions up to maybe 7 years for rape and 4 years for the
kidnapping of an admiral's daughter, but 8 years for the tapping of
opponent's political headquarters. I think it is kind of interesting. I
am not looking for an answer from any of you.
Tliank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. j\Ir. Rangel.
Mr. Rangel. Lieutenant, did you give any testimony as to the rela-
tionship between convictions and arrests in connection with perpetra-
tors?
Miss Tucker. No.
Mr. Eangel. Well, I can see where the assistance that you are giving
to the general public, or rather women specifically, would give you
more information in order to make more and better arrests ; but what
happeiis to the rules of evidence in court on corroboration ? Have you
heen able to effectively deal with that through the district attorney's
office ?
Miss Tucker. I have been in connection with the district attorney's
office and in contact with them ; and as I mentioned before, also with
the hospitals.
I think the problem, as far as corrolioration, is something that has
to bf' attacked nt all angles and a ])art of the problem is the fact, first
of all, that women themselves don't realize the significance of, for in-
stance, running home and taking a shower after an attack which will
eliminate any evidence that was there. This has to be something, I
think, that is also an educational program, where a woman, if she is
attacked, must realize there are certain things she must do, as much as
she may wfint to forget the incident. If we are going to have any sue-
49
res? at all in convictinor a person, "we lune to have some tools to Avork
Avith.
I am looking in, as I said, with the D.A.'s office, so they will give us
some guidelines as to exactly what is needed for a conviction. There
are many odd, or shall I saydiU'erent, things that may be around that
we may be able to utilize. One in particular is a bite file that we are
creating. If a woman is bitten you can take a photograph of the bite,
and when we apprehend the person involved we can take a cast of his
mouth and match that up with the photograph.
It is actually evidence, concrete evidence, that can be used in court.
It is similar to fingerprints. This is just one area that we are finding
out al^out that we are going to be utilizing, and are utilizing. I am sure
there are many other things we are going to be able to find out that
will help us get convictions.
Mr. Rangel. I suppose you agree a change of the law might be more
effective in the work that you have done ?
]Miss Tucker. Yes. There has been a change in the law in New York
and I don't think we can actually at this point evaluate it and say it
didn't lielp at all. I think it was May of last year that the law was
changed, and although there are still problems as far as I can see,
I would like to see exactly how effective the law is and if we can work
with it.
Then after everything we have done, and as tightened up as our in-
Aestigations have become, if we still are not able to get a conviction
then I think the move has to be to try and change the law.
Mr. Raxgel. What is your batting average in terms of arrest and
convictions?
Miss Tucker. The convictions have l)een very low, but actually, as
far as the new law is concerned we have had few cases come to court
under the new law. So I don't think I can evaluate it at this point.
]\Ir. Raxgel. Well, your department is doing a tremendous job in
getting pul)lic support, but how do you explain if a woman goes
tlirough all of these embarrassing things, even with a sensitive in-
vestigator, only to find the perpetrator back on the street? I think this
is one of the things, from the layman's point of view, that makes you
wonder wliy should you get involved and subject yourself and your
family to this so-called embarrassment, if, in fact, you don't have the
convit-tions.
How do you cope with that ?
Miss Tucker. First of all. we are looking now to try and get a con-
viction on the cases and at least today you can get a conviction on an
assault if the woman Avas attacked. Avhereas last year at tlie same tinie
you couldn't get a conviction on an assault. If it was connected with
tlip rape, you lost tlie whole thing.
rhai]'inan Peppku. What is tlie new law to which you refer?
Miss Tucker. Actually, the old law required an eyewitness, someone
standing there and testifying to every step of the way. You had to
testify to penetration, the act. everything had to be corroborated by an
eyeAvitness. Today that is not nex^essary.
But you do need circumstantial evidence to support the evidence.
Chairman Pepper. Corroborating evidence Avhich may be physical ?
Miss Tucker. Right.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Keating?
50
Mr. Keating. I "woiild like to ask a couple of questions, and if I am
repetitious, I apologize. Say so and I won't recall testimony which
took place when I wasn't here.
I have been concerned al^out this rape law as well. We had a rather
celebrated case in Washington at one of the universities here ; and as a
result, there has l3een much Avritten about it and much discussed about
it, and much discussed about changing the law.
Subsequently, there were some instructions, I gather, to female em-
ployees on the Hill, and they told them what to do under certain cir-
cumstances. And they said to submit so that you don't sustain any
serious physical harm or injury, or maybe even loss of life; but also
tliat if you do, your chances of winning your case in court are very
slim.
Now this, I guess, is what we have to get around, to make a law very
effective in this ai'ea, and I am wondering how you cope with that
specific thing, so far as proof in court is concei-ned.
First of all, do jou tell the Avoinen to submit so they don't sustain
physical injury if you are out talking about this subject anywhere?
Miss Tucker. No, I don't. I think as far as submitting or not. it
has to be up to the woman herself. This is a decision she is going to
have to live with. I do exjilain the pros and cons as to what will hap-
pen to the women. I don't think anyone can judge the position a
woman is in at a time like that and say, "Gee, I think you should
submit," or "No, fight to the death," because a woman may submit
and for the rest of her life condemn herself for submitting; whereas,
another woman may fight and be seriously injured.
I think it has to be something that at the moment when this hap-
pens she, herself, has to make this decision. I don't think it can come
from an outside source.
Mr. Keating. How are we ever going to shore up the laws at all?
There is almost a presumption if she does submit that she did so
willinglv and nr-t under any duress.
Miss Tucker. This is the problem ; but I think there has to be some
recognition that a woman may feel she cannot cope with fighting a
man, and there is no shame and disgrace in submission in a case like
that. But, unfortunately, the laws are such that if there is no physical
damage to the person of the victim, it is very, very difficult to prove
that she did not go along with it,
Mr. Keating. And in, that event, when you have an incident such
as occuri-ed at George Washington University. I think statistics some-
times will show there has been an increase in this kind of a crime after
there has been an acquittal in a case that has gotten a great deal of
notoriety. I think there is likewise an indication thei-e are a few cases
of reporting an incident of rape for a short period of time after such
an incident has occurred.
Miss Tucker. That may be true. Many of the women I ha^e spoken
with are disheartened with the law. What we generally do, though, to
prepai'e a woman for the experience she is going to go through in
court is go with the woman — I have one of mv girls assio-ned to her —
to try, as I said, to prepare her for the experience she is going to ha^■e
to undergo.
But many cases don't even reach the trial level. They are dismissed,
or they take a plea, because they feel the corroboration requirements
61
have not been met and tliat the case wouUl not be won if it went to
triah So it is a problem and we are aware of it; and we are trying to
do everything we can to tighten up our investigations in the hope that
if there is any fanlt on our pail we will see it, and recognize it, and
correct it. And if it isn't on our part, and if it is tlie law that defi-
nitely needs correction, then we are going to do e\er\ thing we can
to try and change the law.
;Mr. Keating. Now, I don't know what your procedures are, but I
know several instances involving incidents — exposure and also rape
cases— where police officers were totally insensitive to the situation
to the point where these girls that were involved in the incidents were
suggesting to all of their friends that whatever happens don't have
anything to do with the police because they are going to give you a
ver}^ difficult time ; they are going to act as if they don't believe you.
Now, really, it is a prelude of what they are going to experience in
the courtroom, but is there some way to stop this? This is a very real
problem in raj community, your community, everywhere else. I think
women get together and they talk and they ask "'\^niat's the use?"
Miss Tucker. I have gone out and given many talks to various
groups of women in the hope of reaching them and making them
understand that we are there and we want them to come forward, and
we will be as sympathetic and understanding as possible.
I know all of the women I have working for me, and myself in-
•cluded, cannot listen to a woman who is reporting the crime of rape
and not have the hair on the back of their neck stand up. It is such
a really heart-rending situation. And it is a situation that will prob-
ably stay with that woman for the rest of her life. I think that none
of us can lose sight of that and I know as long as I am in charge of
the unit it won't be lost sight of.
We are trying to also expand this as I mentioned earlier. We do
have specialization in rape, and male detectives are selected and
screened for their sensitivity in this area because it is a crime that
stays with the victim for years. I have had phone calls from women
who were raped 8 to 10 years ago. I spoke to a woman just the other
day. I have gotten letters — I have piles of letters — indicating how
happy the women are to know we are there and that they have someone
to talk to.
Apparently, in a crime like this, it is difficult to even speak to your
■own family about it. Somehow, even your husband or your mother
M'ill say, "Gee, don't talk about it; you forget it." But the woman
'doesn't want to forget it.
I am hoping that with the establishment of this unit and perliaps
■other units throughout the country — ^because other police departments
have also written to me expressing their ho]3e they could follow suit
and asking how we set up our unit — I think it will make a big dif-
ference. Once the women know that they can come forward, I think
we are going to be able to apprehend the perpetrators.
Mr. Keating. I agree with tliat; and being sympathetic to the
woman's position in tlie matter I have to say tliat if someone seeks
your advice, or iny advice, or some member of the panel, whether or
not to prosecute, if you get in that area, there must be some reservation
in telling people to go ahead and prosecute, Imowing what they are
52
going to go through and knowing the difficulty that they are going
to be confronted with.
Miss Tucker. I don't agree, really. I have experienced this and I
have spoken with women, and I said to them, "Look, we may have a
problem, but we are all working at this together and if we don't go
forward, if you don't come forward to the police and let us know how
many crimes are realh- being committed out there, we are never going
to be able to do a ny thing with the problem."
As far as convictions are concerned, that will come. You have to take
one step at a time. I think one big issue is getting the women to come
forward and report the crime.
Mr. Keating. Is there any effort being done at your level, and at
the prosecutoi-s level, to cope with the problem of corroboration in the
courtroom at this time ?
You have a new law as you indicated. What does this law require ?
You told us what the old law requires. Tell us what the new law
requires.
Miss Tucker. The new laws still require some form of corroboration,
but it can now be some type of circumstantial evidence. You do have to
prove that a rape was actually committed. You also have to prove that
the person forced you into the rape. But as I said before, we now don't
have to have an eyewitness.
Mr. Keating. Is pure assault a lesser crime overall ? Is pure assault
a lesser offense so the judge or the jury determining the innocence or
guilt can find them guilty of a lesser offense without retrial ?
Miss Tucker. Yes.
Mr. Cawley. Mr. Keating, if I may. This unit was created in the
middle of December. That is when the concept really came into the
fore. Then the next several months we had been in the process of try-
ing to build it, so that many of the concerns that you have are oui's.
and we would hope when we get enough of a base to analyze and study
we will be in a position to understand the problem somewhat better
and, hopefully, come up with some better answers.
Mr. Keating. What I am saying in questioning here really relates
to all offenses and all criminal trials in a sense. It just is more serious
in this, because I think it happens more frequently. I think that. No. 1,
people have grown to tolerate certain levels of crime over the last 10
years.
Second, I believe that people hesitate to become involved because the
judicial system is slow and witnesses have to come back repeatedly to
the courtroom, and they lose wages each time, and it is very difficult
for the poor pereon who is a wage earner, an hourly wage earner, to
keep coming back. I think there are a lot of things like this that kee])
people from wanting to report crimes. The victim, for example, feels
he is going to lose more from his place of employment.
Now you, myself, and the courts, have to make it more convenient
for the people to get involved in the prosecuting of these crimes so they
will be willing to come forward. We have to make it easier for people,
and we have to encourage it. We don't have to make it a penalty they
must pay, either in wages or adverse publicity, et cetera, to get these
convictions.
Mr. Cawley. I agree with that.
Mr. Keatin{}. I just think it is an attitudinal thing Ave have to over-
come. A lot of people don't vrant to serve on juries because they are
53
treated like cattle. There are just a lot of tliiii<>-8 in the very human
treatment of individuals that can help overcome this crime problem.
Mr. Cawley. I a<>ree.
]\Ir. KEA'nx(!. It really rests Avitli you and myself as a lef>-islator,
and the judges, to really' start doinc ^vhat is necessary to get this job
done.
I didn't mean to get carried away, but T want to thank you very
uuicli for youi' testimony.
Chairman Peppeii. Mr. Wiggins.
Mr. AViGGixs. As you all know, the penalty for the crime of rape
has been in a state of transition in this country a long preiod of years.
It Avasn't too many years ago that tlie death penalty was a connnon
penalty for the crime of rape. It was one of several categories of capital
otfenses, and still exists, if it is authorized at all, in some States. It
does not exist in the State of New York.
Do any of you have any observations about changes in the penalty
for rape, in terms of (.a) getting convictions, and (b) the increase or
decrease in the incidence of rape ?
]SIr. Caavley. Would you repeat the last part of that ?
]Mr. WiGGix s. Yes.
One of the notions that we clierish is that the stiffer the penalty the
more deterrent the impact will be upon possible violators. The penalties
for rape liaA'e diminished in your State. Have you noticed a greater
or lesser incidence of rape as a result of tliat changed penalty ?
Ml". Cawley. There has been an increase in the number of reported
rapes in Xew York State. I can't, however, relate that increase directly
to the severity of the penalty. I am not able to say if because we no
longer have a death penalty, or the death penalty is not one of the
punishments that will be given to a convicted rapist, that the number
of rapists has increased because of that. But there has been an increase
in munbers of reported rapes. It is a matter of statistical fact,
]\Ir. WiGGix's. Tlien let me pose a speculative question this way:
If your State legislature, in a fit of passion, were to reimpose the death
penalty, to the extent it is constitutional to do so, for the crime of rape,
do you think it would haA^e any impact upon the instance of rape in
your State?
Mr. Cawley. Tliat is a very difficult question to answer directly. I
think one impact upon the crime of rape and upon crime in general,
the most serious crime, Avould be if moi-e of the people that Avere con-
victed of the serious crimes, rape included, Avere imprisoned, if that
were possible. I think Commissioner Murphy, before he left, indicated
tliat someAvhere in the neighborhood of 95 percent of the crimes re-
sulted in plea bargaining, and in many instances convicted felons are
not confined to ])iison at all.
So I think in that sense that if we had a greater assurance of im-
l)risonment for crime, pai-ticularly very serious crime, that might have
an impact on it.
]Mr. WiGGixs. Certainly muggings, Avouldn't you say?
Mr. Caavley. That is correct.
Chairman Peppeij. T^ieutenant Tucker, out of your experience have
you formed any opinion as to Avhat type of weapon a Avoman might
use, or Avhat would be the best Avay for her to protect and defend her-
self, in case she is attacked ?
54
Miss Tucker. I don't think a weapon is tlie answer, because a man
can easily turn a weapon against the woman herself and it can then
be more serious than before. However, I think if most women were
knowledgeable about street fighting and knew the areas where to
kick — if somebody tried to gash out someone's eyes, or kick them in the
shins, or groin area — I think things of this nature for all women to
know would be probably a lot better for the woman herself.
Chairman Pepper, Referring to corroboration : A lot of the cases I
read about is where the man used a knife or threatened to cut the
woman's throat if she didn't jdeld.
Miss Tucker. Yes ; but what happens is if he is not arrested immedi-
ately with the knife there is no evidence that this actually occurred.
it is her word against his unless she was cut and there was physical
damage to the Avoman. This many times happens.
Chairman Pepper. That is what I said: There isn't any physical
damage on the body if she jdelds against having her throat cut.
Mr.'^Rangel?
Mr. R ANGEL. I just wanted to find out whether or not you know how
many members of the New York City Police Department reside within
the city of New York.
Mr. Caweey. I would take an off-the-top estimate of about 60 per-
cent.
Mr. R ANGEL. Now, it is still the law. I believe, that a New York City
policeman is really on duty 24 hours a day ?
Mr. Cawley. That is the written regulation ; yes.
Mr. Rangel. If New York City was able to get more members of the
police department to be residents of the city of New York would not
that improve the efficiency of the police department ?
Mr. Cawley. Yes ; I would say yes.
Mr. Rangel. Well, have we ever tried to do anything to encourage
or to give incentive for more residents to become policemen?
Mr. Cawley. As you know, Mr. Rangel, the civil service examina-
tions are given by the civil service commission, and by current law
people living in some five or six neighboring communities within New
York State can compete for those positions. So that people living in
Nassau, Suffolk. Westchester, Brooklyn, to name a few, can live in
.those communities and still be hired as New York City police officers.
Mr. Rangel. I laiow since the Lyons laws was disposed of, we do
have this; but I was just wondering from the chief of police point of
view whether or not your office would be supportive of any type of
legislation which to me would create almost an automatic increase in
ilie number of policemen that would be available for any political
subdivision.
Mr. Cawley. I am in favor of working out some type of arrange-
ment where we can increase the number of New York City police
officers coming from within the confines of New York City. There are
a lot of options that might be available there. We have tried, absent
their being able to change the law at the moment a lot of different
tactics — the Community Service Order being one — with a long-range
vieAv of perhaps having that as a preliminary step toward a man
.achieving the rank of patrolman.
'•■ Of course, that is not a career ladder at the moment; although it is
something we seriously thought about. We are anxious to increase the
55
number of emploj'ees that live in New York City and work in New
York City, but we do have the problem of dealing with the existing
law, which is always a difficult one.
JMr. Rangel. Do you have the problem in terms of your own regula-
tions and your upward mobility of tliose policemen that not only M'ork
then for the police department, but have elected to live in the city of
New York? Would you not be in a position to promote these men at
a different rate of speed than perhaps those who lived in New Jersey
and outside the New York City area?
Mr. Cawxey. You are talking about positions above the level of civil
service rank of captain ?
Mr. Eaxoel. No. I thought the police commissioner had made it
very clear that those officers that, for example, were involved in suc-
cessfully bringing about bribery convictions, the promotions would be
handled a little differently than tliose officers that were not actively
involved. Is that not so ?
Mr. Cawley. If the commissioner said that, he was talking about
promotion opportunities that exist outside of civil service promotional
oj^port unities. They would be men promoted to the rank of detective
who would have their career path accelerated because they partici-
pated in a particular program.
Mr. Rangel. Don't you have preferential assignments where you
could lielp out a patrolman a little better that lived in the city than one
who didn't?
jNIr. Cawley. Any preference that we show toward any of these
assignments would be based primarily upon whether he had the skills
and talent for the position.
INIr. Rangel. Say the 6 to 2 shift ; don't they get a little something
extra for volunteering for the so-called force platoon? Don't they get
more than the fellows that just take the normal flack?
Mr. Cawley. They have the niglit differential pay but anyone work-
ing between the hours of 4 p.m. and S a.m. receive that. Again, the
assignment to any specialized unit would be primarily dictated upon
what the skills were as opposed to where he lived.
Mr. Rangel. If I were a policeman and lived at 182d Street and
Lenox Avenue, I know I would be on duty 24 hours a day ; and I am
receiving tlie same pay as someone tliat loaves tlie community aud jrives
that new community outside the city of New York the benefit of all
of his expertise and training.
Could you support the fact that I will get preferential pay be-
cause I am exposed to my law enforcement responsibility more than
someone that lives outside the city of New York ?
l\Ir. Cawley. You mean extra compensation for living within the
city?
Mr. Rangel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cawley. It is something I had not seriously considered, but I
certainlv will think a])Out this as a possibility.
Afr. Rangel. You agree the police that do live in the city are ex-
pected to give a little more to the city than those that live outside of
the city?
Mr. Cawley. I would agi-ee a man who lives in the city 24 hours a
dav. 7 days a week, is certainly much moi-e responsiA'e to take a police
action than a man who comes in 40 hours a week.
95-158— 73— pt. 1 5
56
Mr. Rangel. And that would lielp the police department service
the peoi)le in New York City, would it not '?
Mr. C'aw^ley. I would agree with that.
Mr. Brasco. Chief, I am under the impression that mont of the
patrolmen start out on the job living in the city of New York, and then
move out. And based on that, isn't there something tliat can be done
to hold theui in the city l Or is the reverse true, the majority of police-
men being recruited now are being recruited from outside the confines
of New York City i
Mr. Cawley. Very frankly, in answer to that question, it would be
strictly a guess at this point. I am not sure whether we are hi ring-
more people Avho li\e in the city and subsequently move out, or ^ice
versa.
]Mr. Brasco. Chief, Congressman Rangel asked Avhether or not you
would support a change in the law, if that is what is necessary, so
that, by statute, preferential treatment, all other things being equal,
can be given to patrolmen who remain in the city ?
Would you be in favor of that kind of approach?
Mr. ( 'aweey. I would certainly be in favor of the new employees
that we are bringing aboard, and we are hiring quite a few this year,
if there was one way of having them live within the city and stay
within the city, that would be preferable to the system that we now
have, where they work within the city but can live outside of the
city.
Mr. Brasco. I am not suggesting we ask those already living outside
the city to sell their homes and come back. Obviously, I am not
talking about that kind of chaos that would be created in one's personal
life. I am talking about new employees, specifically.
Mr. Cawley. Ideally, we would like to have city employees em-
ployed l)y the city and live within the city. There are a number of
problems, as you know, including housing conditions and a lot of
other factors that would have to be carefully studied by a number of
people before change could be made in the existing law.
Chairuian Pepper. Miss Tucker, I believe that finishes your inquiry.
Thank you very much. We commend you for your great work.
]Mr. Tvynch, would you go ahead ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes, sir.
Seated next to Chief Cawley at the witness table is Deputy Chief
Inspector Simon Eisdorfer. ITuder his command is the New York
Police Department Robbery Stakeout Squad.
I wonder. Chief, if you could describe to the uiembers of this com-
mittee what the robbeiy stakeout squad is, how it operates, and what
has been its rate of success over the past 5 years it has been operating ?
Statement of Simon Eisdorfer
Mr. Eisdorfer. Yes.
This stakeout unit, as it is called. Avas formulated in 1968.
Due to the increase in robberies, due to the increase in homicides
onto business people, due to the increase in the availability of hand-
guns, and also because of community pressures, we formed this unit
in 10f)S, consisting of 40 patrobnen with adequate superiors.
These pati'olmen were selected as volunteers. They were given
psychological testing as to their stability; they were trained in marks-
57
niansliip ; in tlie laws of a nvst, evidence. They were trained specifically
to work inside, to cope WMtli this robbery probleni.
Although we have only 40 men, and we are now down to 32 men
because of attrition, we feel that these 32 men do have some public
impact to alhiy the fears of the conununity. We select the location
upon the coniphiinant's application to his local precinct commander.
Usually these business people have been held up more than once.
Usually the perpetrators that appear on the scene have been the same
on more than one occasion.
"VVe select our location, keeping in mind the safety of the public, the
safety of the people using the business premise, the safety of the offi-
cer and, of course, the safety of the ownier of the business involved.
We use diti'erent types of weapons. We use either rifles or shotguns,
whichever the location that we select to secrete the patrolman suits
us best.
AVe usually stay in one location for a minimum of about 30 days.
With 32 men we can onl}- cover, roughly, about 15 locations at any one
time. It we feel that the robbery potential has diminished because of
our presence there, or because it is known that we are there, we don't
stay there longer than 30 days.
If we feel that we may have some impact we do stay there beyond
the 30 daj'S, although we may not have any contact with any criminal.
The'men.are adequately suited. We use bulletproof vests. Most of
the time w^ have ho contact with the criminal. About 25 percent of
the time w;e do luive contact, and usually when we do have contact, we
are successful in either apprehending or injuring the criminal.
Last year, 1972, we covered predominantly 24 locations. We had
seven. contacts, and out of those seven contacts we had nine arrests
and five injuries. This year so far, on a 3-month period, we covered
six locatiohs; we had tw^o contacts with the criminals for a total of
five ari-ests^
We tried to keep the officers in this unit for a mininnnn period of
2 years, and then we try to rotate them to give to them different duties.
We don't like to keep them in here beyond the 2-year limit.
_ We can't pinpoint our effect exactly. On a transient area, an area
like Times Square, an area where we have manj^, many people, I doubt
whether we have any impact at all. But on a local business area, a lo-
cal shopping area, we have considerable impact and, usually, if we do
have one contact within that premise, within that store, and it doesn't
reoccur, then it does have.
Mr. IJyxcti. Chief, it is my understanding that in the past 5 years
of operation you have had approximately 200 stakeouts
Mr. EisDOKj^ER. Yes, sir.
Mr. LYNcii [continuing]. And in approximately 53 of the stakeouts
there was a confrontation with armed robbers, and that in 25 of these
confrontations armed robbers were killed by stakeout s<iuad officers.
Are those figures substantially correct?
Mr. EisDoRFKR. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lyxcu. You indicated there were five injuries in 1972. Were
those injuries fatal ?
Mr. Etsdoim'ei:. Five fatal : yes, sir.
Mr. Lyxcti. To the robbers ?
Mr. EisDoKi'KR. Yes, sii-.
58
Mr. Lynch. How many businessmen have you lost since you oper-
ated this unit ?
Mr. EisDORFER. We haven't lost any. We had two i)atrolmen in-
jured— shot. I recall having one shot in the fall of last year — shot
in the stomach. He lived.
Mr. Lynch. Chief, the FBI crime data shows that in 1968 you
had a rate of robbery of approximately 485 per 100,000. In 1971,
that rate had risen to 790. In our earlier dicussions with you when
we were up to see you with our investigators, you indicated it was
difficult on a city wide basis to judge the effectiveness of this kind of
operation. But you also indicated that in certain sections of the city,
it was the department's view — and it certainly was your view — that
a stakeout would, for a given period of time after a confrontation,
reduce the number of robberies in that locale.
Do you have any data that could substantiate that judgment?
Mr. EiSDORFER. No; I don't have any data on that score. But as a
rule that does happen. We do remain in after we do have a confronta-
tion.
The people already know we are there — the business pople know
we are there, the local community knows we are there — and I think
that in itself has a positive settling effect on the crime rate within
that immediate locale.
Mr. Lynch. Can we infer then that armed bandits come from the
locality in which they commit robberies? How do they learn about
your operation ?
Mr. EiSDORTER. It looks like they do come from that immediate
locality. As a rule they do. We find they do come from a close vicinity
to the premise which they hold up.
Mr. Lynch. Are your operations publicized in any manner?
Mr. EiSDORFEJR. As a rule, when we do have any shootings it ig
publicized. It does come out in the newspapers and people learn about
it; yes.
Mr. Lynch. I realize you don't advertise the fact you are staking
out the XYZ candy store, for instance ; however, does the department
publicize the availability of this service, and does it publicize as a
departmental policy the existence of this special antirobbery squad?
Mr. EiSDORTER. I don't think we publicize it as a rule, but I know
all of the business people know of its availability.
INIr. Lynch. Chief, of the 25 armed robbers who have been killed in
confrontations with your men, have you had occasion to check the
criminal records of those armed robbers, and if you have, could you
tell us how many of them were recidivists? How many of them in
particular had prior armed robbery arrests and/or convit^tions?
INIr. EisDORFER. I don't have the figures for it, but I will tell you the
majority of the people are recidivists; they do have prior armed
robbery arrests.
Mr. Lynch. Would that information be available from your depart-
ment ?
Mr. EiSDORFER. Yes.
]Mr. Lynch. Could you send that to us ?
INlr. EiSDORFER. Yes, sir.
ISIr. Lynch. We would appreciate that.
[The information requested was not received.]
59
Mr. EiSDORFER. I would like to point out, INIr. Lynch, that in the
last contact we did have with five people that held up a grocery store,
four out of the five had prior convictions of armed robbery — five
arrests.
Mr. Lynch. I do have one further question, Chief. Let me preface
it by saying that Commissioner JNIurphy this morning in his testimony
indicated the city wide anticrime section had not generated any adverse
publicity, nor was there any unusual level of violence connected with
it in the discharge of police functions. Obviously, in this robbery stake-
out operation, there is.
There are a lot of people who are being killed. They, of course,
were people who were in the act of committing felonies. Nonetheless,
what effect does this have on the department's image in the city?
Have you been criticized for this unit? Have newspapers or magazines
criticized the existence of this unit ?
Mr. EiSDORFER. I would say when it was originally instituted we did
have criticism. I would say in the past year that the people are asking
for this service. "We are not getting criticism for the past year.
Mr. Lynch. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Tell us, Chief Eisdorfer, how are your men de-
ployed in a given store, say ?
llllr. EiSDORFER. They are deployed according to where the money
is kept, where the exits are, where the entrances are, and where the
customers pay their bills. In other words, at a supermarket the cash
registers are usually at the end of a line at which the people line up
at the checkout counters. We have to be very careful in any location
like that.
Chairman Pepper. The officer is hidden under the counter?
Mr. EiSDORFER. No; we usually have various methods. We put up
various installations which we get behind.
Chairman Pepper. I see.
Mr. EiSDORFER. It blends in with the local decor.
Mr. Brasco. Mr. Chairman ?
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Brasco ?
Mr. Br^vsco. In connection with some of your comments, Chief,
again I contend from an experience in my own district that you do
have an impact. As a matter of fact, one of those shootings in which
a policeman was injured occurred last year in an A. & P. on Lincoln
Boulevard, around Van Sicklen Avenue, that was in my district.
The police officers on the stakeout team were shot at. However, I
do know, as a result of your confrontation and activity, the string of
stores that were constantly being robbed in that area did decrease.
I do find it particularly disturbing that there are only 32 men on
your squad, with respect to availability; and that is one thing I find
disturbing throughout that we haven't been able to develop the size
of the force in the city that is required to meet the increase of crime.
I suppose it is not really your problem. It is a problem of getting
funds, either from the city, State, or Federal Government to enlarge
your capabilities.
With respect to the criticism that might be leveled, I think that
that kind of a squad has a specific mission and it is kind of a difficult
mission to perform when people are already in a shop with their gims
drawn, and apparently becoming more and more like cowboys in the
60
city, which leads me to the question of capital punishment with respect
to certain types of felons.
And— do stop me if I am wrong — but it has been my own experi-
ence, again drawing from what I was used to in the D.A.'s office, we
get a number of cases in which people can be prosecuted with robbery,
but if they went in with unloaded weapons or "dummy up starter
pistols," tiiere was at least, in my opinion, from that experience a
very distinct feeling on the part of the would-be perpetrator that he
didn't want to get involved in any shooting because he knew there
was an ultimate penalty to pay if he did shoot somebody and killed
him.
I am wondering whether or not, in your experience as a policeman,
you have been able to get the same kind of feeling. Today there are
more guys with loaded guns and shooting up the town, like the wild
west, and whether or not that dovetails with capital punishment with
respect to, in this case, felony murder.
Mr. Cawley. I don't have any statistics that would indicate whether
or not more simulated guns are being used as opposed to real loaded
guns. However, my sensing is there are manj^ more loaded weapons
being carried, rather than simulated weapons.
I would also like to just backtrack for a moment and speak about
the 32 men currently assigned to this unit. This unit was instituted
5 years ago, as Chief Eisdorfer indicated. A year ago, at the begin-
ning of this year, January 1 of 1972, the detective bureau was reorga-
nized on a specialized crime basis. As a result of that reorganization
there are detective district squads in each area of the city whose sole
responsibility is to deal with the j^roblem of robbery.
In many instances, ovei- and above the service provided by stakeout
unit operations, the detective bureau engages in the same type of plant
activity, based upon locations that have experienced large numbers of
robberies.
So we are not addressing the problem ; we are centralizing it to any
greater extent we are in the current commitment, but we have a large
number of detective investigators that deal with the robbery problem.
INIr. Brasco. So vou are saying your complement stakeout is much
larger than 32?
]\Ir. Cawley. I am saying the stakeout unit per se, and by its form
of operation, is a relatively small one, but the detective operation
which has the bigger responsibility for dealing with the robbery prob-
lem in its district does employ and plant stakeout activities as part
of its operational activity.
INIr. Beasco. "Would there be any figiire as to how mucli the combined
units would be ?
Mv. Cawley. I wouldn't have any statistics available as to how
many stakeouts or plants the detective bureau undertakes.
INIr. Eangel. Do they work together with the central stakeout ?
Mr. Cawley. There would be very few instances, unless I am wrong
about this. The detective bureau would be instituting, by virtue of its
analysis of the robbery problem in its district, its own stakeout for
plant operation rather than stakeout. It doesn't stay in there on a
stakeout for 30 days.
If it runs into a liquor store problem, for example, it identifies and
makes the prediction perhaps the next robbery that will occur in_ a
liquor store in this district will be one, two, or three, and they will
61
put the detective personnel in those li({uor stores anticipating this
might be where tlie next crime occurs.
Sir. Brasco. Do either of you oentlemen want to comment on capital
punishment, with resj^ect to select classes of homicide^
In this particular case, commission of armed robbery?
Mv. Cawley. "We have capital punishment in Xew York on a very
selective basis, as you know. The killino- of a police officer, and one
or two others. Many, many studies lia\e been done over many, many
years as to whether or not capital punishment in and of itself is a
strong deterrent. There has never been any firm conclusion drawn,
to my loiowledge.
Mr. Brasco. I agree. I was asking from your experience as a police
officer. Obviously, we are not going to get answers to questionnaires
from guys who said, "I changed ni}^ mind because the laAv was too
tougli in that area."
I was trying to get it from your own experience. As I said mine was,
formerly, there were many more starter pistols and unloaded weapons
used in holdups. It seems to me today everybody is carrying a loaded
gun.
Mr. Cawley. In answer to that, I think I mentioned to Mr. Wiggins,
in my own view, it is the certainty of the punishment, the fact it will
be administered, that is a much more eloquent factor in itself.
]\Ir. Wiggins. Chief Eisdorfer, wouldn't you agree most robberies
are reported?
i\Ir. Eisdorfer. Yes.
.Air. Wiggins. It turns out that New York City has the highest rate
of reported robberies of any citv in this country. How do you account
for that ?
Mv. Eisdorfer. I think, populationwise, we have the greatest
population.
Mr. Wiggins. I am talking al)out rate per 100,000 population.
3Ir. Eisdorfer. Possibly it could be because we are close; we have a
seaport. We are traders, possibly people obtain the weapons easier to do
these crimes and can get them easier within the city of New York.
i^.Ir. Wiggins. What is the weapon of choice for robbery ?
J\lv. Eisdorfer. Usually a handgun.
Mr. Wiggins. The opponents of handgun legislation are always
pointing to the New York Sullivan law as an example of a strong but
ineft'ective gun law. I am not sure I know the provisions of the Sullivan
law. but I gather it requires a signature to obtain or possess a weapon
at all.
Mr. Cawley. That is true.
i\Ir. Wiggins. Do you have an observation as to whether it is Avork-
ing. and if not — I think the answer is no — whv not ?
Mr. Eisdorfer. I think the ease with which these hand weapons are
obtainable is the main reason why the Sullivan laAv isn't Avorking.
]Mr. "Wiggins. Where do they get them ?
^Ir. Eisdorfer. The weapons come in from other States which have
gun laws permitting the carrying of guns. They may come in from
other areas which permit the manufacture, or the assembling of these
weapons.
Also, I believe they may come in on the harbor, on boats, railroads,
airplanes. There may be burglaries in this respect. That is how they get
into this market.
62
Mr. Wiggins. Well, I suppose that the importation of handguns is
a subject that Congress could address itself to, but do you really think
that is going to have any impact on robberies in your city ?
Mr. EiSDORFER. If it would be countrywide. If it would affect the
whole country, I think it would have considerable impact throughout
the United States.
Mr. Wiggins. I don't know for a fact that it is easy to possess hand-
guns in Texas, but if one would believe their reputation at least, every-
body packs a six-shooter down there. I notice the robberies in the city
of Dallas are at the rate per hundred thousand of 195.3, whereas in
the city of Is^ew York, as of the year 1971. the rate was 790. That is
a dramatic difference, and I suspect that the obtaining of a weapon
in Dallas is a relatively easy matter. I assume that.
Do you have any observations ?
Mr. EisDOKFER. iSTo.
Mr. Cawxey. I would like to at least make a comment, Mr. Wiggins.
Mr. Wiggins. Yes.
Mr. Cawley. The statistical process of gathering nationwide crime
sense is one way of truing to measure the crime problem and you can
compare it with other jurisdictions. I don't think the system is com-
pletely flawless by any means. I am sure you are not suggesting that.
Mr. Wiggins. That is why I asked the question whether or not
robberies are reported. I kind of think robberies, like homicide,' are
reported, and we start with a fairly common statistical base. That is
my assumption. You can challenge it, of course.
Mr. Cawley. I would like to bring up a point. I don't care to chal-
lenge it. The statistics are done on resident population, unless I am
mistaken. I would like to just interject the thought here that in addi-
tion to having 8 million residents in the city of New York, that during
the course of the business day somewhere between another 2 and 3
million people probably come into the city.
I think that might be one reason why ci'imes are committed on a
greater number of people, in terms of the base structure, and then
when the number is arrived at, it is divided into a smaller base.
Mr. Wiggins. That is not, in fact, the case here. It could be. but it is
not. For example, the population base of New York, for purpose? of
these statistics, is 11.6 million, which doubtless includes the greater
New York area and not just the Manhattan area.
Let's take another city with which we are familiar. Washington,
D.C.. has a population within the confines of the District of Colum-
bia of 800.000 or 900,000, but the statistical base upon which these per-
centages are computed is 2.9 million, I think that includes surround-
ing counties as well. What I am saying, Chief, is that if there is an
imperfect base it is imperfect for the rest of the country as well, and
thev suffer as you do.
The difference is so dramatic in New York City with respect to rob-
beries over other major areas that I am curious, and I welcome any
explanation for it. Especially, given the reported strength of your
gun law.
Mr. Cawley. Well, the gun law is strong. We do have, and we
have spoken about it frequently, the problem of Saturday night spe-
cials and the availabilitv of weapons on much too broad a l3ase for
anyone who cares to really pick one up for $20, or some of them retail
63
at $18. The totally inacceptable availability of handguns is one
problem.
We do have a narcotic problem in New York City: there is no ques-
tion about that. We have a lar;!ji:e number of addicts that would proba-
bly give us a bigger potential pool of people that are ready to com-
mit crime.
There are entirely too many robberies: there is no question about
it. We are aware of it. We are making progress in that area. I can't
really tell you why, but there are six times more robberies in New
York than there might be elsewhere.
Mr. Wiggins. Can you tell me why the rate of robberies has almost
doubled in New York in the last 4 years ?
Mr. Cawley. Well, we are having a lot of difficulty with the total
criminal justice system in New York. We pointed this out before. Our
courts are clogged. A lot of the people we arrest go into the system and
return to the system. We do have almost a breakdown at points in the
criminal justice system that have to be addressed, I think it is a critical
problem in New York and we have been trying to deal with it.
]Mr. Wiggins. One would think there might be some rough correla-
tion between homicide and robberies. At least you have a dangerous
weapon involved in both cases. The homicide rate in New York is not
out of line with the rest of the country. It has not doubled, for exam-
ple, in the last 4 years, whereas, robberies have. Although I don't have
an answer, apparently you don't, either.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Wiggins, if I may, it is interesting to note that
there was an incredible jump in 1965-66 in the New York robbery
status, and I do recall — I believe you had a commissioner who came in
in 1965, but I may be Avrong on that— distinctly because that was the
time when the National Crime Commission and the D.C. Crime Com-
mission were looking at this problem, and that the New York Police
Commissioner announced a new policy on reporting robberies and in a
1-year period it more than doubled.
Can you address that?
Mr. Cawley. I believe it was 1965, and it pertained to all reports of
crime. I think at the time Commissioner Leary was appointed. He
was very much concerned with the accuracy of the crime-reporting sys-
tem and insisted that the system function properh^ and that all crime
reports be recorded. And there was a substantial increase.
Mi\ Lynch. It went from 88.9 in 1 year up to 213.5 the next, which
is a remarkable increase. This would lead one to believe that a very
substantial number of robberies prior thereto were going unreported.
Was there, in fact, a change not only in policy regarding reporting,
but a change in the criteria for a robbeiy ?
Mr. Cawley. Well, clearly, there was a policy statement, as I recall
it — it has been some while ago — to the effect all crimes had to be re-
ported and reported precisely as described by the victim.
There was also the hairline that existed in whether it was legally
existent at that time, between the grand larceny classification and
robbery.
Mr. Brasco (presiding). Whj' don't we take a 5-minute break?
[A brief recess was taken.]
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order.
jNIr. Lynch, will you proceed ?
64
Mr. Lyxch. Mr. Chaimian, are there further questions on the rob-
bery stakeout squad. If not, we wouki like to move along. We have
three other programs to discuss.
Chairman Pepper. Go right ahead.
Mr. Lynch. Chief Cawley, I wonder if you could call to the witness
table the representatives from the neighborhood police team, from the
auxiliary police, and from the crime prevention squad.
Chairman Pepper. As I understand it, you have three programs.
We will defer the questions until Mr. Lynch presents the three pro-
grams and then we will open for questions'.
Mr. Lynch. Chief Cawley, I wonder if you could ask Sergeant
Crowley to give us a brief presentation descrilDing the nature of opera-
tion of the new neighborhood police team concept.
Mr. Cawley. Fine. I have Sgt. Robert Crowley from the sixth
precinct. He is a neighborhood police chief. Let me give a brief back-
ground of the program.
l^Hien Commissiojier Murphy became police commissioner of Nev/
York City he instituted a neighborhood police team concej)t in the
77th precinct. That was the first. Since that time we have added ap-
preciably to the number of neighborhood police teams tliroughout the
city. We now have 70 operating in some 40 precincts. Basically, tlie
concept has the twofold objective of crime control and improved
police/community relations.
I have asked Sergeant Crowley, based on his firsthand knowledge
and information, to acquaint you with that.
Sergeant Crowley.
Statement of Robert Crowley
Mr. Crowley. Basically, the idea behind the neighborhood police
team is to take one first-line supervisor — in the case of our department
that would be a sergeant — and assign him proportionately that per-
centage of the available precinct manpower in connection with the
same percentage of crime in a given area.
As in my case, they have chosen two sectors — in that area tliere
was 26 percent of the crime of the precinct. Therefore, I was assigned
26 percent of the available manpower in the precinct. My duties were
to devise new methods of patrol, to attempt to reduce the crime
through the community by involving the community in our efforts,
to try and initiate their interest in their own problem and see wliat
we could do as far as directing their efforts into reducing the crime
problem.
I was allotted 40 men at the original inception of the precinct. Since
then, I have been allotted an additional 4 units, so that I now have
44 patrol officers under my command.
We had, as I said, instituted different programs through community
block associations.^ We have developed new techniques" in patrol be-
tween the communitv and ourselves. We have been successful in reduc-
ing crime in tliat given area by approximately 50 percent over the
past 22 months.
Mr. Lynch. Chief, in order to move along and expedite our proceed-
ings here, I wonder if we could now have Inspector Rogan discuss
briefly the crime prevention unit.
65
Mr. Cawley. Deputy Inspector Rogan is on my right. He is the
commanding officer of the crime prevention sqnacl.
In addition to liaving a crime prevention squad that operates, and
is assigned orally to my office, there is a crime prevention patrolman
assigned to each of the "^72 patrole-d precincts throughout the city.
I will ask Inspector Eogan to give you some understanding of
what the purposes are and what our programs are.
Statement of Joseph Eogan
Mv. RoGAX. With the thought in mind of the ability of the citv to
place a uniformed patrolman on the street — the cost is increasing-
year after year after year — I think it was felt that we must find a way
to utilize every means of physical security. By that I mean hard-
ware, alarm systems, all of those things that can in some way help
to reduce the crime rate without actually committing more men.
In that regard, we do have 40 men located in our central office and
70-odd men in the various precincts of the city who have gained
a certain level of expertise in use of alarm systems, locks, closed-
circuit TV, and other methods of reducing crime which depend mainly
on the hardware itself, other than the personal service.
In the past year we have conducted over 15,000 surveys in private
businesses, and in 85 percent of those cases we found that their
security was inadequate. In over 60 percent of the cases where we
made recommendations, we had compliance from the owner of the
business.
We also maintained a speaker's unit where we can send out a
detective, converse him with a particular crime situation, be it robbery,
burglary, rape, cargo theft, whatever it may be, and speak to a group
whose interest is mainly in that area.
We also conduct at our police academy a security management course
three times a year. This is intended for the civilian security director
of a corporation or firm, in order to take the expertise that has been
gathered on a nationwide level and keep all of these people up to date
in the recent innovations of crime prevention.
Then we recently have been assigned to administer the city's block
security program. That is a new program that is just in the develop-
ing stage.
We also encourage the precinct crime commission patrolmen with
the help of tlie people in the neighborhood that organize programs that
have a specific meaning to that neighborhood themselves. Sometimes
centrally directed programs for the city at large may fail to meet local
needs where those needs are particular.
One precinct may have, for instance, a very large incidence of auto
larceny where another has a very high incidence of robbery. Through
the methods of the use of the time penachrome we try to find the
single crime in the precinct that is causing the most public concern
and address that on the local area.
Mr. Lynch. Chief, I wish yon now would call on Auxiliary Police
Inspector Siegel and Deputy Inspector Luhrs to describe this very siz-
able auxiliary police force and how it operates within the context of
your overall department operation.
66
Mr. Cawley. I have Deputy Inspector Lulirs, commanding officer
of the auxiliary police services section, and with him is Inspector
Joseph Siegel, who is a member of the auxiliary police and has been
for over 20 years. I will ask Inspector Luhrs to give you an under-
standing of the extent of the program, and then Inspector Siegel might
lell you how he sees it from being a member of the auxiliary police.
Statement of Robert E. Luhrs
Mr. Luhrs. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen : What you heard today here
deals with what the police departments themselves are doing to at-
tack the crime problems. What I would like to address myself to is
what the system is doing.
I think in New York you will find the largest and I believe the
most successful auxiliary police force in the entire country. We are not
new. The auxiliary police program has been with us since 1951. It is
there for every city to have by Federal mandate. But in our city we
have generated the force which has increased over twice in the last
year and a half to a size now numbering 5,300 men and women.
There are over 600 women involved ; there are over 450 young men
between the ages of 17 and 21 involved. Our purpose is to be dressed
in a uniform and qualify to participate in this program. And by uni-
formed patrol have the physical crime deterrent effect that a member
of the force might have.
I might add that we are not policemen, that the auxiliary will never
be a policeman. Our purpose is to serve in a nonenforcement situation.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me. Are they armed ?
Mr. Luhrs. They are not armed, sir. Some are armed because they
:are licensed to carry a weapon for a purpose other than being an
auxiliary policeman. They carry a night stick and they carry a walkie-
talkie, which is tuned to the same frequency as our police communica-
tions system. But we have a group of men and women who are respond-
ing to community needs. We do not accept everyone. A person must
enroll, must be fingerprinted, must take a 10-week course, must be
qualified, and the fact he has a previous criminal record does not nec-
essarily disqualify him. But then he must purchase a uniform which is
identical to the police uniform I wear.
With some exceptions, the patch that he would wear shows the word
"Auxiliary" and the shield is a seven-pointed star rather than our
identifying shield.
He then is directed to patrol an area he knows is in his own com-
munity. He is responsible directly to the precinct commander. And I
wouldn't care how many we had, unless the police department was
fully in back of the program, and Police Commissioner ]\Iurphy is.
And Chief Cawley is. And Chief Kahn is; and every high-rank-
ing officer, down to the police commander, is directly responsible for
generating this valuable community resource that he has and must
use. There is no better crime prevention program than an individual
citizen who performs voluntarily in an area he knows, among people
he knows.
No one gets paid and we want no one to get paid. Because then we
know they come to us for one purpose and one purpose only. It is an
excellent program. We have 15 fully equipped emergency vehicles
67
responding to the needs of tlie community and serving as an adjunct
to our emergency service division.
We are now in mounted patrol, using police department horses,
which would normally not be used. We have a harbor patrol because
our area is composed of extensive waterways and people patrol their
own vessels in and out of the waterways as auxiliary policemen and
policewomen.
Last month, gentlemen, our auxiliary gave 56,884 hours to the city
of New York, receiving not one penny in return. This is a purely volun-
tary organization that has far-reaching effects. Anyone can do it ; any
city can do it. We will be willing to help any organization, anyone who
wants to find out more about our program. I would be most hap]:)y to
help them develop this force, which can really make an effect in the
conununity.
I would like to add one thing more : We talk about the blacks being
apathetic or the Spanish being apathetic, but 22 percent of our force
is black. Whatever the ethnic composition of the precinct, that is tlie
ethnic composition of the auxiliary force. About 15 percent are His-
panic and we give courses in Spanisli to those who would better learn
in their language. We have 100 Chinese who perform in unifonn in
the areas that they have knowledge of.
We have an excellent organization, a successful organization. We
will not have a paper army. If you cannot give us the minimum num-
ber of hours we don't want you. And I think this is why we are suc-
cessful. We are a disciplined, uniformed organization that performs
in all enforcement functions.
iNIr. Winn. What is the minimum number of hours you referred to?
Mr. LuHRS. They are required to perform 4 hours a week and they
are permitted to perform a minimum of 20 hours a quarter if because
of illness or job situations they cannot get to us.
But we know they do perform an average of 12 to 14 hours each
month.
Mr. Cawley. Inspector Siegel will now give you the benefit of hav-
ing been a member of an auxiliary for 20 years.
Statement of John Siegel
Mr. Siegel. I am glad to have the opportunity to come before this
body after serving 20 years as a volunteer. I am speaking for the
volunteers, not for myself.
For a good many years it was a thankless sort of job, where people
were not paid and they had to buy their own uniforms, pay for their
own transportation, and lay out moneys of their own to go out in
uniform to patrol the city of New York.
It is only in the jiast 21/4-3 years, that we received what we call the
pro])er recognition for our efforts.
We are glad that Commissioner ;Mur]:)hy, and the mayor of the
city of New York, and Chief Kalni and Chief Cawley have actually
got behind this program.
I think we can best emphasize first the iini)ortance of the auxiliary
police to the: city of New York by a release that was made by Police
Commissioner Murphy. Tliis was as recently as November 1971. He
announced an expansion of the department's use of oiviliaii volunteers
in the fight against crime. The commissioner indicated that he felt
the present auxiliary police program was not being used to its fullest
potential, and stated that it is his intention to mesh the volunteer
services of the auxiliaries into a regular operation of the department
so they function as a new adjunct of the services rendered by the
uniformed force.
Further, Commissioner Murphy said that it was incumbent upon
the local field commanders — that is, the captains — to use the auxiliary
police in imaginative and innovative ways. Commanding officers shall
liot take lightly their obligation to incorporate their valuable resource
into the department's efforts to curb crime in the street.
This is a statement by the police commission, Commissioner Mur-
phy. The auxiliary police are always available for that special service
the}^ could render as a volunteer. The volunteer, as you laiow, gen-
tleman, is nothing new. We had voluntary firemen through the his-
tory of our country. Voluntary deputy chiefs wliere tlie police depart-
anent can afford a well-paid police department. And the auxiliary
police, by their uniforms being similar to those of the police depart-
ment, create a great deterrent to crime on the streets by merely
patroling in pairs with a club and uniform.
The fact they are not armed is not visible to the average person be-
cause they w^ear their jackets and coats and one doesn't know they
haven't got a gun.
The community relationship that exists with the auxiliary police,
and the public, and the police department is a tremendous factor for
the police department and for the public because they meet in the
police station, the stationhouses throughout the city, the auxiliary
places in 70-odd precincts. They are well received, thanks to police
department leaders.
The captain down to the lieutenant and sergeants and patrolman
welcome the auxiliary police. They cooperate to the fullest extent and
we liave been the last couple of years issued walkie-talkies, which are
actually a very important arm for the auxiliary policeman, because
he presses the button and has the assistance which he needs in an
emergency.
Incidentally, each year we have participated in several hundred
arrests or aided in arrests in various parts of the city, and we have
prevented unknown amounts of crime by our presence.
We have been issued the use of the police horses in recent months
because the men who are patrolling in the parks, mounted, paid for
their horses and they felt they should contribute the police horses
instead of the men paying out of their own moneys. We liave these
men trained at the police remountable stable and are using the police
horses on a regular patrol basis now.
The park units have been issued patrol cars as a pilot program, to
have auxiliary police actually in the patrol cars that may not be used by
the regular police or when not used by the regular police. So they
are out in the field where they can be seen by the public.
I said in the beginning that I am glad of this opportunity to bring
out the fact that for over 20 years we have had men besides myself
serving that long, others 15 years, 12 years, without nny obvious recog-
nition of their service to the comuuuiity. I think it is a grand thing
that you have this committee asking to hear about the auxiliary police,
the first time we are able to voice this out of this sort of basis.
69
I wisli to thank tlie g-entleman.
jNIr. Cawley. If I may, 1 would like to give you a specific instance
where we recently expanded the type of duties that auxiliary police
officers can perform, and then show you how much savings you can
realize from it.
We always police the St. Patrick's Day Parade. It is generally a
large commitment because of the number of marchers and observers
and the celebration that usually comes after. SomeAvhere in the neigh-
borhood of 1.400 police officers. This past year, this past parade, we
were able to invest just approximately 800 uniformed officers and
used 400 auxiliary police officers, meaning that the 400 that we had
previously committed on a good 8- to 10-hour tour on a parade situa-
tion were able to remain on patrol in the communities they were
assigned to.
Chairman Pepper. Very good.
Anything further, ]Mr. Lynch ?
Mr. Lynch. Sergeant Crowley, as a neighborhood police team ser-
geant I take it that in your neighborhood j^ou have a considerable
amount of authority ; that in essence you act as a chief of police for
that neighborhood ; is that correct ?
Mr. Crow^ley. That is correct.
]Mr. Lynch. And you indicated to the committee that in your neigh-
borhood you had 44 patrolmen, and in the past 22 months you had
reduced the crime rate in that neighborhood by 50 percent.
]Mr. Crowley. Yes. sir.
Mr. Lynch. How do you account for that ? What did you do that a
precinct commander would not have done ?
IMr. Crowley. Well, you must understand, I still serve under the
precinct commander. I consider myself a source of referral for his
problems.
Mr. Lynch. How large is your area ?
Mr. Crowley. It is 18 square blocks.
What we did in the first instance was to change all of the posts,
after analyzing the crime situation, where we normally wouldn't have
had this authority. This is the difference this program gives you. The
first-line supervisor has the authority whereby the rules and proce-
dures of our department are automatically suspended in that given
area and I, therefore, had the authority to move on my own volition
when I see the need to move in certain areas. n ■- ; n
No. 1, we created all new posts after realizing I had a very high
burglary rate. Cars were being broken into and projierty removed
was extremely high.
Based on the simple fact that geographically you could park more
cars on the side streets than on the main avenues, I moved into side-
street patrol. That had an immediate effect on crime. At one time we
had approximately 800 cars a year in that small area being broken
into ; the following year, we were down to 180,
We are still yet to hit a hundred in the past 10 months.
We have developed our own intelligence system within the team
whereby every criminal complaint is registered within that area. I
have one specific individual -who will contact the complainant if
the complainant has seen the perpetrator, and we will go into an in-
depth consultation with that individual as to the modus operandi
of the criminal.
70
What we are looking for is a repeater in the area. We have developed
our OAvn photo system. We felt the patrol force, as tlie uniform force
and the lirst line needed to more to expand from within to help, and
what we have done in this instance was develop our own photo system
which the community, over a year, paid for the film and what not,
whereby we could take an individual who had robbed and immedi-
ately bring him into our office at that time and question him, show him
pliotos, where again he will receive the service by the investigator later
on.
It is just based on the intimacy of a given neighborhood.
We tried to develop a causation factor in every major crime. I like
to use in this case an instance where we had a very high crime rate
in a given area. On assessing the area we found out there was a social
service building that was forcing the individuals who were waiting to
get into the building to stand on the street for 6- and 8-hour periods.
We felt this caused an awful lot of problems. We contacted the so-
cial services agency; we asked them to provide for a waiting room,
which they did; and immediately the crime rate dropped down.
There are certain types of patrols we developed. Let us say we had
a large transient hotel where you could get a room for $6, and in the
immediate area of that hotel and "within the hotel we had a very high
crime rate. We developed a patrol to go right in the hotel four times
a day where in that instance you might not catch many people in the
act of crime, but you establish a police presence immediately, again,
would show a reduction.
We had a problem with shoplifting and pickpockets within stores.
We were able to develop through the State penal law an interpretation
on the felony or burglary whereby someone reentered that building,
that store, a second time; rather than charge him with the minor
crime of petty larceny we were now legally able to charge him with
burglary. The store cooperated by formulating a little card that they
paid for, having the individual sign it, and we used that as corrobora-
tion in court to sustain the felony conviction.
We also have gone into a perpetrator trial, whereby, to eliminate the
footman, the time he must spend within a ])recinct should he bring in
a suspect, or in the arrest case, and he fe«ls this individual might have
committed other crimes, we have an individual file which we developed
and can immediately tell if this man is wanted, based on his physical
description.
Mr. Lynch. Are your men mostly on foot patrol or in patrol cars ?
Mr. Crowleit. In my instance, I utilize footmen. The team is really
sui>posed to be flexible, according to the area it is assigiied to patrol.
Mr. Lynch. You liave 44 men in an 18-square-block area. Is that a
higher proportion tlian a regular precinct captain would have in a
similar area ? Do you have more men, in other words ?
Mr. CuowLEY. Yes. These men are taken directly from the precinct.
It is a reapportionment.
Ml-. Lynch. I understand that. But would a typical precinct com-
mander in New York City — perhaps Chief Cawley could answer that
better— 1)6 able to deploy 44 men in a given 18-square-block area? Is
that high, normal, or low ?
Mr. Cawley. The number of men that were assigned to the neigh-
borhood police team by the precinct connnander is dictated by the
workload that existed within that particular area.
71
Mr. Lyxch. So there woiiklu't necessarily be a higlier saturation
than liad been tlie case in tlie past ^
Mr. Cawley. It shoukl be the same percentage assionment. Tliat
44 men represented 5 or G percent of the total com})lement in that 18-
block area that was the ijerccntage of the problem there, to try to
match up the number of people with the percentage of the problem.
Mr. Brasco. Would counsel yield at that point?
It would seem to me then, Chief Cawley, that basically we are
agreeing with the premise set forth by Congressman Kangel earlier
this morning about the eti'ectiveness of the foot patrolman; and it
just seems to me no matter how you work it out statistically, that in
this neighborhood police team concept you have in that i8-square-
block area, particularly the area that Sergeant Crowley is talking
about, more men than you ever had before in the institution of that
patrol. Isn't that correct ?
^Ir. Cawley. Let me ask Sergeant Crowley to respond to that. He
is closer to it. Is that a fact ?
Mr. Crowley. At one time there were only 16 men covermg those
2 sectors. That 18-block-square area represented 2 radio-car sectors.
At one time there would have been 16 men assigned to those 2 cars.
Mr. Brasco. Now you have 40 ?
]Mr. Crowley. Possibly a few footmen.
]Mr. Brasco. Now yon have 40 ?
Mr. Crowley. Yes. You have to understand, again it is based pro-
portionately, 100 percent on the ratio of crime to men assigned. We did
put in more men.
Mr. Br^vsco. I understand that, but I think it speaks for the equa-
tion where you do have a high-crime area, if you are able to give it
the special attention you are obviously giving this particular 18-
square-block area with foot patrolmen in combination with auto
patrol, that the crime significantly drops in the area. I think that is
Avhat we were talkiiig about this morning. I am not quarreling on how
you statistically base it, how many men go into the area ; but it seems
to me what you carve out of what is a high-crime area, or you go to
work in terms of doing the job you just described, we get results.
Again, it is unfortunate we don't have enough of these teams oper-
ating; and I suppose it is because we just don't have enough police-
men to go around.
^ Mr. Rangel. But the chief said this morning that the most ineffi-
cient way to use a policeman is as a foot patrolman, and the sergeant
is now talking about the dramatic decrease in crime as a result of liis
utilization of the foot patrol. Where is the conflict, Chief ?
Mr. Cawley. Let me for a moment ask Sergeant Crowley.
How many cars are presently covering that particular area ?
Mr. Crowley. Two, sir.
Mr. Cawley. And you now have liow many more men than you had
previously ?
Mr. Crowley. Presently 28.
Mr. Cawley. And yet, I have to apologize for not being thoroughly
conversant as to the percentage of men assigned to the sixth, and how
many are in here. My understanding of the concept and the way we put
it in, was that out of the total number of men assigned to the precinct,
the precinct commander would determine where the neighborhood
police team would be most effectively used, and then based upon
95-158— 73— pt. 1 6
72
the existing workload in that area he would take that percentage of his
resources and assign it within the particular area. That Avas the basic
concept.
I think, while I am hard-pressed to try and explain whether the 30
more men that were assigned in there over and above what it would
liave been, I find it difficult to equate what was to be done Avith what
was done.
Somehow, I figure it is not quite that bold. Mr. Congressman. There
were 28 more than had been previously in there. If he is using more
foot patrolmen because he has increased capability and he is driv-
ing down the crime, then that certainly proves the point that if you
saturate an area with a numter of foot patrolmen, coupled in with
the use of radio and motor patrol cars, you will have a greater im-
pact. That was the point you brought up this morning.
I am not sure — while Sergeant Crowley is talking about a 50-per-
cent reduction in his neighborhood police team area — what tlie total
reduction of crime might have been within the total precinct, and
whether the other adjoining sectors might have suffered a little bit. I
have to look at the overall statistics.
Mr. Rangel. That may be so. I don't even know the area Sergeant
Crowley is involved in. but I am willing to take a gamble that there is
a mucli closer relationship between the community within Sergeant
Crowley's command as a result of these foot patrolmen tlian there
could possibly be with that radio squad car, which I have to believe
would attribute any decrease in crime, or certainly as it relates to
conviction, since no matter how effective the policeman is you need
the community support, especially witnesses, in order to be successful.
Mr. Cawley. There are, 3klr. Congi-essman, disadvantages to motor-
ized patrol. One is there is a definite lack of contact between the people
and the men in the car. There is a better contact between the foot
patrolman who is on the same post day after day. There is much to be
said for that. There is a halfway position with the use of scooters.
I think the point I was trying to make this morning was that I have
a percentage of resources that I have to spend, if you will, and the
most economic, practical, and efficient way that I have to spend that
total number, covering the entire city at the moment, is to assign them
for the most part to radio motor patrol.
Mr. R ANGEL. I just don't understand why Sergeant Crowley, who is
a miniprecinct commander, has not made the same determination since
he has redirected 40 rnen to put them in 40 squad cars.
Mr. Cawley. Well, there would be no need to put them in 40 squad
cars, Mr. Congressman. AAHiat we try to do is on a total citywide basis,
and I am sure the reason why there are only two radio cars working
in that particular area is there are certain responses we must make to
service calls and crime calls.
We must maintain certain manning levels so we are responding to
the calls throughout the precinct.
I know one of the problems we had throughout the city with the
neighborhood precinct concept: Because of the lack of service calls
that come in the central communications facility we wind up often-
times with something like 50 percent of our cars being outside of the
neighborhood police team community they are working in. We are
trying to work on that.
73
Mr. Kaxgel. What kind of service calls? Are these really police
service calls or those that can be handled by other than police
personnel?
Mr. Cawley. They are calls that come into the 911 number and get
pi'ocessed out over the years. Calls coming from the citizen of the local
precinct that get out for service, reports of past crimes, reports of
aided cases. The wide range of service the public expects of his police.
Mr. Ltnch, Chief Cawley, let me clarify one thing. Sergeant Crow-
lley has 44 patrolmen. I take it that is 24 hours a day ?
Mr. Crowley. That is right.
yir. Lyxch. You have approximating, a third except in the higli-
'crime period of the da^-, basically on foot patrol. It would seem to me
Ihat in any other 18-squa re-block area in the city you might have one
ior two patrol cars patroling at any given time. Is that basically cor-
rect ?
Chief Caavley. That would be basically correct, but I don't think
Sergeant Crowley is saying he has 44 men working in that particular
iirea at the same time throughout the entire tour.
Mr. Lyxch. I imderstancl that.
Sergeant, from late afternoon up until midnight how many men
anight you have on the beat in that 18-squa re-block area, maximum ?
Mr. Crowley. The maximum number I would have would be eight.
Mr. Lynch. Approximately, how many people live in that area ?
'Sir. Crowley. A])])roximate 50,000.
Mr. Lynch. Chief, I have one other question on this program that
2:)erhaps vou could respond to.
I had the impression from Sargeant Crowley's testimony that he was
at least on the verge of saying that he has a good deal more latitude in
cuttino- bureaucratic corners than a precinct commander might ordi-
narily^have. Is that the case? Have minichiefs of police, if you will,
neighborhood police team sergeants, been freed of some departmental
bureaucracies?
Mr. Cawley. Yes. The neighborhood police team has, or the team
chief has, and so has the precinct commander. Consistent with the pro-
gram I have mentioned earlier of policy change on the part of Cominis-
sioner Murphv. decentralizing the authority down to that precinct
commander. "We expect the precinct commander to make hard judg-
ments and o-ood evaluations and assessments of his problem and to re-
spond to them, not to come up to the bureaucratic change, waiting for
somebodv at the top to say, '*0K ; you can do that."
But to do it and advise, this is what has been done.
Mr. Lynch. Are you getting any kind of special funding for tins
program ?
Mr. Cawley. The neighborhood police team ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes. ■■,.■, , i
Mr. Caw-ley. I think perhaps at the outset we might have had some
fundino- but there is no current funding to mv knowledge.
Mr. Lynch. How will you go about evaluating its elfectiveness, or
lack of effectiveness? -, , i i t ^i • i •<■ io
Mr C^w-ley There has been a studv conducted, and i think it is
in^the final stages of beinir drafted, by the Urban Institute. It was
a l-vear studv comparing some of the NPT programs and precincts in
whiVh the concept was activated, as compared with controlled bases.
Mr Lynch, ^^^^len will that be completed : do you know {
74
Mr. Cawley. Frankly, I don't; but I had a conversation with Mr.
Peter Block from the Urban Institute just within the past 2 weeks.
I think it is in its final stag'es and could be available shortly.
Mr. Lynch. Could that be made available to us ? It will be very help-
ful in preparing- our final report.
Mr. Cawley. I see no reason why it should not be.
[The information requested was not received.]
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Rogan, in talking about the crime prevention
squad, I had the impression that what you are really talking about
is providing technical services to businesses, citizens, on a citywide
basis; advising them, for instance, on burglar alarm systems and the
like. Do you provide any kind of specialized crime prevention serv-
ices to precinct commanders^ Do you organize programs for them
or give them technical advice and assistance to particular problems?
Mr. R(X}AN. The crime prevention patrolman is assigned to each
patrol precinct and is under direct command of his precinct com-
mander. I oidy exercise a staff supervision over him. These crime
prevention patrolmen are trained ; we have an 8-day session once a
month, except for the summer months, 10 months a year. As a matter
of fact, I say on balance, that the precinct crime prevention patrolmen
have come up with more innovations than has the central squad.
Many of these programs have been done under the guidance of the
precinct commanders. For instance, in one section of Queens one crime
patrolman enlisted the aid of private taxicab companies that work in
his area. He got a bank to install a direct line between the four private
cab company dispatchers and the stationhouse. These cabdrivers now
are actively calling in suspicious people or reports of crime. They are
very active in finding lost children.
This happens to be what you call an amusement-type area. This
would probably not work in midtOAvn jManhattan, but in the area where
this patrolman is involved it does woi'k.
In another situation we had the rooftop marking program, Avhere
you had the situation of helicopters more and more coming into use,
and they find that the comnnmication between them and ground units
leave a lot to be desired because of the difficulty in transmitting loca-
tions. The patrolmen started the rooftop marking program. They have
come up Avith a mnnber of innovations and most are under the guidance
of their precinct commander.
Mr. Lynch. How do you judge how effective a given program is?
What, to date, have been the results of the number of surveys ? I believe
you said 15,000 surveys of private businesses. When you do a survey,
I assume the purpose of it is to advise the store proprietor he needs
better security equipment, et cetera.
Mr. RoGAN. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. Do those people take your advice, and do you do any
kind of followup ?
Mr. EoGAN. We have found, as I stated before, that in SO to 85
percent of the surveys we do there is a glaring lack of security in the
premises involved. We resurvey 25 percent of the cases and "do find
a rate of about 70 percent compliance with the recommendations.
As this program has not yet finished a complete year, it is very
difficult:, at this point to give a precise figure. In one of the operations.
Operation Identification, we initially enlisted 1,800— and I know that
75
is an infinitesimal small figuro when you take the city as a whole —
households in the operation identification program. Most of these
people had previously been subject to burglaries.
To date, the last figures I have, of the 1,800 participants only 3 had a
recurring burglary and in 2 of these cases it was a family situation
where the husband left and came back and stole something. Actually,
out of 1,800 cases we had one actual matter-of-fact burglary. I realize
the base is so small that we can't really count too much on this
statistic.
jNIr. Lynch. The base is small but I take it that would be a much
lower repeat rate than would normally be the case ?
]Mr. RoGAN. Yes. And I have great hopes for the program and hope
to extend it citvwide very, verv soon.
Mr. Lynch. Inspector Luhrs, you gave us some facts about the size
of the auxiliary police force operating within the department. Could
you tell us to what extent auxiliary manpower, in fact, free sworn
officer manpower for street-level enforcement duties ? In other words,
Mr. Siegel indicated that last month some 56,884 hours' service were
donated by the auxiliary policemen. Does that mean 56,884 NYPD
patrolman hours were saved for more pertinent enforcement functions?
Mr. LuHRS. I don't think that would be the right analogy. Whatever
number of policemen are in the precinct are performing services as
you heard today. They are still there performing the services, but
there are many areas which are uncovered or would need to be
covered and I think our auxiliary forces serve in that capacity as an
adjunct. "VVe do not replace policemen and I don't think we should
measure what the auxiliary does in saving the police department from
hiring a policeman.
I thmk our way of looking at it is that the need is great, the com-
mimity needs are there, and now we must generate the individual com-
munity member to respond to the community needs which the police
department is not going to solve. There are many situations within
each community that will always be there. I think, rather than the
individual coming out and complaining the police are not doing their
task or doing their job, we ofi^er them an opportunity to come in and
help the police do the task.
Mr. Lynch. Is there a particular kind of activity which an auxiliary
policeman ought to perform ?
Mr. LuHRS. He does perform foot patrol now in pairs. We have
vertical patrols involved in going through buildings with a member
of the force; foot patrols, unused radio cars driven to location by
regular men and manned by an auxiliary, and other auxiliary police
going out in other situations. Horizontal and vertical patrols. They
are out there for 4 hours. They are out there to give the individual the
feeling of the presence of the policeman. They are out there to assist
the community.
^ They are going to reduce tensions and fears. I think we will con-
tinue to grow and grow and grow until the level of acceptance is
reached where an individual feels that he is then comfortable in the
area in which he is living.
Mr. Brasco. Would counsel yield ?
Mr. Cawley, the testimony that all of you have given to us today,
as far as I am concerned, is particularly exciting. I think they are
76
steps in the right direction. I have, again, personal experience with
the neighborhood police team. I don't think there is much disagree-
ment here in the community with the initial steps you have taken, but
being a native New Yorker I know the rank-and-file patrolman talk
about the low morale on the job and how he is upset and deeply con-
cerned about what I and my colleagues might consider new innovations
to fight crime.
Has there been any lack of expansion of these particular programs
described here today by virtue of the rank-and-file patrolmen and
their associations not cooperating with what one might call the in-
stitution of new ideas with respect to crime fighting ?
Mr. Cawley, Mr. Congressman, change is never easily accepted by
anyone. You can always anticipate whenever you go with new pro-
grams and new approaches that they are not going to be accepted bv
everyone. I am happy to say I firmly believe the bulk of the police of-
ficers in New York City accept the programs that have been put in.
We have been very successful, for example, with anticrime at the
precinct level. That is done on a volunteer basis, a selective volunteer.
We found more volunteers than we used because we are very careful
who we put into those assignments. We have men volunteering for
crime prevention work.
We have men volunteering for neighborhood police team sort of
duties. We have men volunteering for resident agents' work, which
is extremely difficult.
^ Dealing with the problem of morale is extremely difficult. What
IS good morale? I measure a man's performance by what he accom-
plishes. I can't give you tlie absolute statistics, but I will give you the
general trend because it is an accurate one : Last year the nuinber of
arrests made by the members of tlie uniformed service was well
above what it had been the year before. They participated to a much
greater extent in the traffic enforcement program. The number of
parking violations summons were higher. The number of moving vio-
lations were higher. They have been asked to participate in the execu-
tion of outstanding warrants from the court.
Mr. Brasco. I am not quarreling with tliat. I recall from speaking
to members of the department and, indeed, the colloquy in the New
York newspapers that each and every one of these programs that
were instituted met with resistance, that members of the P.B.A. got
on TV and in the press talking about the quota system, talking about
the deterioration of the morale in the department with respect to
particular programs where change was instituted.
I suppose you answered the question when vou said that chano-e
is not easily accepted. It seems to me the basicVriticism of the com-
missioner, who I think is doing a good job, is by virtue of the fact
he is attempting to chano-e systems in the department that have
not been effective in the past.
Mr. Cawley. There has been some criticism of programs v/hen they
were instituted, both in the press and by the P!B.A. leadership, bv
some of the men. Our efforts have been'fi-eared toward getting and
receiving greater productivity, if you will, from those' people we
do employ.
I regret to tell vou that in some studies that were done there were
cases where an officer might be employed for a 2-year period and
77
never issue a sunimons nor make an arrest. "When a man is working
in a very busy community and men working along-side of him are
making arrests, they are serving smnmonses, I think it is a perfectly
legitimate mandated responsibility on the part of management to ask
some hard questions about wliether the ofFicer is earning his day's pay.
To the extent we began askhig some hard questions about — how are
you earning a day's pay — there was some reaction to it. But, again, I
tliink it was a very small ])ercentage, in spite of the fact it might have
been reported otherwise. I think the performance we have achieved in
the past years, every year, indicates the men were perfectly willing
and did participate in most of our programs.
Chairman Pepper. Anything further?
Mr. Lynch. No further questions, ]Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Any questions by the members?
]Mr. Wixx. I don't have any questions, but I would like to compli-
ment you, Mr. Siegel, on your 20 years' experience. I have a lot of
questions on that but I think you haA^e given a good explanation. I
don't understand what legal authority this auxiliary has because we
Inive civil rights groups these days that challenge everything a police-
man does anyway.
How are you i:irotected by the contribution of your time and
energies ?
Mr. Siegel. Inspector Luhrs would like me to pass.
Mr. LuHRS. jMay I respond to that, sir ?
The auxiliary has a legal basis by a Federal mandate in 1951, and
the New York State Emergency Act of 1940, I believe it is. Tlie
auxiliary, itself, is protected by workmen's compensation, which re-
quires this department to have workmen's compensation for each
such auxiliary and that is part of our local law. The auxiliaiy is pro-
tected for medical coverage, for loss of income, just as all workmen's
compensation cases might be. So we do have that coverage.
]\Ir. Winn. And you have the right to arrest ?
Mr. LuiiRS. You have the citizen's right to arrest. But what we also
do is tell the auxiliary not to make an ai'rest. He is to back off and
not have confrontation but call for a professional man and let him
make the arrest.
Mr. "Winn. That answers my question.
Mr. Siegel. May I read this paragraph ?
The auxiliary police corps was created under the New York State Defense
Emergency ' Act of 1951 to help the regular police department in case of a
CD. emergency that would be brought on by an enemy attack. Related laws passed
between 1951 and 1959, enabled them to be used in other emergencies and placed
them under the police department for training and supervision.
Mr. Winn. Mr. Rogan, does your group work as public relations
with the community? (^tlier than education, I am talking about, the
installations of these burglary systems?
Mr. RoGAN. Not directly. Naturally, there is a community relation-
ship.
yir. "Winn. Which one of tlie groups, then, would l)e involved, be-
cause I would imaoine it would fall somewhere in this to educate the
people that the police are there to help them rather than the reputa-
tion that seems to be brought down that has lasted for years. How^ does
that develop ?
78
ISIr. EoGAN". The department does have certain specialists in com-
munity relations and is reallj' decentralized all tlie way down to the
precinct level where the person primaril}' responsible for community-
relations is the patrohnan on the street.
Mr, Wink. Tliat is right; but what I am asking is how do you
all of a sudden take the man who has been on the street 25 years, or
15 years, or 10 years, and say, all of a sudden, he is not the bad guy, he
is a good guy ? He wants to help you.
Mr. EoGAN. Most of the patrolmen on the street that length of time
have a firm belief that to the people who live on their beat he is a good
guy, and all. I don't see any problem there.
Mr. Cawley. If I may, We have a deputy commissioner who is
specifically charged with community aifairs. He is involved in an on-
going basis with the development of programs that promote this rela-
tionship between the community and the police service. It is his
personnel. They are decentralized, they work for the precinct com-
mander, but he structures the central programs. And our community
relations personnel attend the community council meetings, business
groups; Inspector Rogan's personnel always address business groups,
community groups — continually.
Mr. Winn. He said that. That is why I thought maybe it fell under
his jurisdiction.
Mr. Caavley. It is kind of a twofold approach, this community
affairs. This is very much a crime prevention program. It is tailored
to do that.
Mr. Winn. His?
Mr. Cawley. Yes, Inspector Rogan's.
Mr. Winn. His neighborhood crime prevention?
Mr. Cawley. Through the educational process and through doing
surveys and showing people how to improve their ability to protect
their own property.
Mr, Winn, As you mentioned, this has worked real well because the
statistics you gave are very impressive. Somebody. I think, said some-
thing about the number of women.
]Mr. LuHRS. Yes, sir.
Mr. Winn. One hundred?
Mr. LuHRS. Over 600. Women are permitted to patrol,
Mr. Winn. They are permitted to patrol?
Mr. Ltjhrs. Yes, sir.
Mr. Winn. You mean street patrol? Not school safety patrol?
Mr. Ltjhrs. No, sir. They patrol the streets with two other uniformed
auxiliaries.
Mr. Winn. They have the power to arrest, but usually call_ for help ?
Mr. LuHRs. But many of their talents are used indoors in clerical
responsibilities.
Mr. Winn. I see.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brasco. Mr. Chairman, one last question of the chief. Why do
we need three separate police departments in the city of New York?
Mr. Cawley. I didn't know we had three.
Mr. Brasco. Transit and housing and your department. It seems to
me it would be more efficient as an operation if it was all consolidated
under one.
79
Mr. Cawley. That is a subject I know has been carefully studied
over a period of years. Quite frankly, I haven't seriously given it any
great amount of thought. The transit authority, of course, is kind of a
quasi-State organization under the NTA, but the housing authority is
part of the city administration. I don't know their numbers at the
present time; 1^500 is a figure that comes to my mind, or thereabouts.
Mr. Brasco. Combined?
!Mr. CA■s^^LEY. About 1,500 in housing. Transit is much larger, though
I don't have that number; and the housing authority is specifically
assigned to patrol within those project areas. Now, whether or not
there is substantial benefit to be realized from a merger of the twO'
agencies is something that would have to be given careful thought
as to the pluses and minuses.
Mr. Brasco. But you don't have any opinion as to whether or not
it would be good ?
]Mr. Cawley. I could probably sit and come up with some pluses
and minuses, but I would have to give it some careful thought as to
whether that would be the best approach to dealing with the problems
of the housing.
]Mr. Brasco. As I understood it, the bulk of those organizations
would like to merge. I may be wrong.
Mr. Cawley. I am not sure whether that is a fact or not.
INIr. Brasco. The PBA hasn't thought too kindly of the merger.
]Mr. Cawley. You might find it interesting dichotomy that where
the patrolman level might want to merge, whereas the upper levels
may not be, because of a number of practical reasons. But I think it
is something that would have to be given a lot of study before I could
give a response.
Mr. Brasco. In closing, I suggest we ought to do that. I have a per--
sonal thought that if we had jurisdiction under one head — I don't
mean the administration's superagency series in total — but if we had
these crime units combined, I think they might be more effective.
Thank you.
Chairman Pepper. Chief, before this part of your presentation is
concluded, give me a view of the compensation paid to the members
of the police force of New York City, the scale and level of pay, from
a new man and up.
Mr. Cawley. They recently concluded a retroactive contract nego-
tiation, so I don't think I can give you the precise figure. But I believe
the starting salary probably comes in somewhere around $13,000 at
this point.
Chairman Pepper. That is the starting?
Mr. Cawley. Yes.
Chairman Pepper. Of a patrolman ?
Mr. Cawley. I know the top salary at the end of 3 years is in the
neighborhood of $16,000. That may include some longevity, 5-year
increments.
Chairman Pepper. The patrolman?
Mr. Cawley. Patrolman is near $16,000.
Chairman Pepper. Wliat is the next level of authority over him?
Mr. Cawley. The next level would be sergeant.
Chairm.an Pepper. What does that pay ? "
80
Mr. Cawley. Probably in the range of near $20,000. A lieutenant
would be the next layer, getting- somewhere around $23,000 to $24,000.
The captain is the next layer and I give you the figure rather than
the increments : A captain by virtue of a conclusion of contract less
than 6 weeks ago, is $30,000 a year. It is a high-priced executive.
The deputy inspector is probably about $32,000 ; the inspector is in
the range of $33,000; and the deputy chief Avould be $3-l:,500. The
next rank level, if I may, is assistant chief. That salary has not been
established as yet. The rank level above that is mine. There are four
three-star chiefs in our department and I am one of them. That
salary has not been established. And there is one four-star chief, who
is the chief inspector in charge of the uniformed services in total. But
the last established salary of the deputy chief is $34,500.
Cliairman Pepper. How does that scale rank with the other major
cities of the country ?
Mr. Cawley. I have not compared it recently, but I tliink it
wouldn't come off second best, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. I was thinking, tliat is pretty good.
Mr. Bras^'o. Where do you take those examinations ?
]\Ir. Cawley. I think it is too late. Congressman. You waited too
long.
Chairman Pepper. I am delighted to hear the salarv schedules vou
have recited here today. I wish it were possible for some program to
permit police officers, generally, over the country to get something-
like tliat because I think they are entitled to it.
I had a bill pending that a police officer would get an income tax
exemption on the first $5,000 of his income, a way by which the Fed-
eral Government, without any direct administratiAe expense, could
add to the compensation of the policeman and fireman both. I think
they ought to get more compensation.
Thank you very much, gentlemen. You have all been very helpful
and we commend you on the initiative and innovative imagination
that you have displayed in these programs. We hope you are going
to keep on pushing forward, trying better programs, and will be able
to greatly reduce the crime we now have.
We will take a 5-minute recess for convenience of the reporter.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
Mr. Lynch. Chief Cawley, the last item the committee would like
to discuss with you in regard to the New York City Police Department
is the so-called Williamsburg hostage incident. I wonder if you. Chief
Eisdorfer. or Inspector Freeman could briefly describe for us how
that incident took ])lace, when it happened, what the initial confronta-
tion was, and how the police department reacted to it.
Mr. Cawley. I would like to ask Chief Eisdorfer to give you the
chronology of that incident from the beginning point to conclusion,
and then any questions that you might have with respect to it we
would be happy to respond.
INIr. Eisdorfer. The initial incident started on a rainy Friday eve-
ning at about 5 :30 on a cold January night ; January 19, at 5 :30 a
call was received at police headquarters in our communications system
that a robberj^ was in progress on Broadway.
The exact address, I believe, was 927 Broadway in Brooklyn. This
area is part of Bedford-Stuy. It is a heavih^ populated area. Broadway
81
is a business location, comprised of stores, with side streets containing
tenements, four- five-, and six-story tenements.
The initial call said a robbery was in projiress. The premise was
called John and Al Sporting Goods Store, selling rifles, aimnunition,
Coleman sto\-es, winter clothing, hunting gear, fishing gear, boats, and
outdoor garments.
At this time there were approximately 12 customers in the store.
There were two owners in the store. The arriving patrolman, first
radio car on the scene, found the front door closed. The premise was
lighted up. They motioned to the owner through the glass door and
the owner motioned them away, saying that the premise was closed.
They thought it was very odd. They saw a man standing close to the
owner with a rifle in his hand. The' rifle was not pointed at anybody,
but they felt since the alarm was transmitted, something was wrong.
They retreated to the outside.
This store had one entrance and one exit. Tlie exit was on a side
street. It was a corner store. Just at about this time, the sergeant also
responded to the scene with another radio car. So we now had three
cars close to the scene with approximately six men.
At this time, a man with his hands up exited from the side exit.
Behind him appeared men with rifles. The officers confronted these
men from across the street. The men with the rifles from the store
started to shoot at the officers. Tlie officers returned the fire. The man
that was holding his hands up dropped to the floor and crawled away.
The sergeant sent an officer after him and it appears that he was
one of the owners of the store. The criminals then retreated into the
store and shut the door behind them. The door appeared to be a steel
door.
So what confronted us at this time was a store comprised of three
stories, a building, actually, containing sporting goods. Incidentally,
we retrieved the owner unharmed. At this first initial contact we be-
lieve we even injured and shot one of the perpetrators. The owner
told us there were four perpetrators.
At this time, the sergeant called for the emergency service division.
Tlie emergency ser^-ice is a unit which has lieen trained with assault
teams to contain an area. This division, besides consisting of the
emergency service division, also has the special events squad which
is a fi-roup of men working at daytime in high-crime areas for special
e\-ents, plus tactical patrol force working in the evening from G at
night on toward the morning. Also, working in high-crime areas.
The sergeant sized up the situation as a hostage situation and called
the emergency service division, which had been trained to handle these
situations. The first emergency service lieutenant and truck arrived
at the scene at about 5 :45. The lieutenant that responded to the scene,
who also sized up the situation and called for additional help, verified
it was a hostage situation, that there were 12 hostages, approximately
4 criminals inside holding them hostas'e, and he asked for help.
At this time, I was in Manhattan. Inspector Freeman was also in
Manhattan, at different locations, and we all responded to the scene.
Mr. "Wixx. How did they arrive at the fact there were 12 hostages?
Mr. EisDORFER. It appears the criminals herded all of the hostages
down to the main floor after this. Prior to trying to attempt to escape
they tied them all together on the main floor.
82
Mr. Cawley. If I might interrupt for just a moment, because at
tins point I think it is important for Chief Eisdorfer to give you some
information about the hostage training program that we have insti-
tuted in the department, as a result of an earlier hostage situation
that occurred in a bank.
We learned several lessons from that that might give j^ou some in-
sight as to why the sergeant sized it up to be a hostage situation,
where he then called for the special operations division personnel.
Chairman Pepper. How many people do you have in that group ?
Mr. EisDORFEK. We have approximately 350 men in this specially
trained group. Of course, not all are working at the same time. But
we contained this condition with much less specially trained groups.
In September of last year we had experienced a hostage situation
involving a bank, plus what we felt was happening throughout the
world in political and terrorist hostage situations, and we decided to
set up giiidelines. We felt that whether it was an aborted crime or
whether it was a political hostage situation, fundamentally we felt
it was a police problem and as such we had enough to go on to set
up guidelines to contain tliis action; and, hopefully, through to a
successful conclusion.
Of course we Imew that a terrorist situation would involve some
political considerations, but nevertheless, until that situation arrives
we felt as policemen we should be there and contain it and should
be in control. This situation fell into exactly our plans with reference
to an aborted crime.
Also to implement our guidelines and implement our plans we
did set up a hostage training school. This school was set up in an
abandoned area, Floyd Bennett Field, where due to the good graces of
the Navy we were permitted to use their abandoned buildings in which
we set up a situation in which we had a hostage situation, and which
the hostages moved in transit to another location, and in which we
had a third location where we had the same similar situation as the
first location.
In our guidelines we broke down our planning into three phases :
phase I, the original location; phase II, the transit; phase III, to
the new location.
We coordinated all of the units. We have trained detective nego-
tiators so that they would be trained to negotiate. We made use'of
our department psychologist and our department surgeon to set up
a profile for us on the type of person who would hold hostages so
we would know the type of people we are dealing with and how to
handle them.
We gave this course to 500 members of the force of the rank of
captain and above, covering the period of about 3 months. In fact,
we had just completed this course 2 weeks before this hostage situa-
tion occurred.
The situation, as I said, was a moving actual situation, in which
the officers, 20 officers at a time, were seated on a bus which had com-
munication with the scene, in which we were able to observe the actual
situation, hear what was happening on a system of communications
and, also, at the same time move with the play role situation to any
new location.
83
This training scene was stopped at critical points and the superiors
were asked to evaluate the situation as to what thc}^ would do and
wliat action they would take.
Chairman I^ErrER. Did you communicate with the hostages on the
inside?
Mr. EisDORFER. At the actual situation we communicated with the
hostages on tlie inside. AVe set up some system of communication. On
the actual situation in Brooklyn we had the bullhorns through which we
could communicate. "We also moved in walkie-talkies, so they could
use a walkie-talkie on a special wavelength, and finally we moved in a
direct-line telephone in which one of the hostages, one of the peojile
on the scene, a doctor who was used to treat one of the injured hostages,
brought in with their permission a telephone, just two telephone
svstems, just among ourselves. A closed-line system. That is how we
did that.
Mr. Br-\.sco. That was an injured perpetrator, wasn't it? Not a
Jiostage ?
Mr. EiSDORFER. Yes.
Mr. Cawley. I think the overview of the training school was to
teach all of the responding commanders to any type situation of this
nature that the critical issue was one of control, organize your re-
sources in a controlled setting, to control response and to maintain
rigid command decision over firepower. I think that is essentially
what we tried to get to each of the commanders.
Chairman Pepper. Who was the highest officer in charge of that
operation, for the police ? What was his title, his rank ?
Mr. Cawley. I spent quite a bit of time there. It was decided on —
we can come back to the details and I would like to include them for
you — somewhere around 10 o'clock Friday night the decision was
made because I was present as the chief of patrol, the chief inspector,
most of the ranking commanders had responded to the scene of the
headquarters that was located some 75 feet away from the sporting
goods store, that it was essential that we divide the responsibility into
12-hour time frames, so we would have rested commanders calling
those decisions.
As a i-esult of that, I went home somewhere around 12 :oO. I guess
it was, Saturday morning and returned at 7 o'clock that Saturday
morning again, and then did a 12-hour tour, 12 to 7 a.m., to 7 p.m.,
at which time Chief Card, the chief inspector, came in, and Kidwell
and I returned for 12.
We divided the number of commanders that we thought were needed,
we created teams and worked together as a 12-hour team. Those com-
manders that were not felt to be necessary, we sent them back. We
did not permit people to remain on the scene we didn't feel we had an
absolute need for.
Chairman Pepper. How long did this operation last?
Mr. Cawley. From the time of the holdup attempt to the time the
four gunmen emerged from the store was 47 hours.
Chairman Pepper. How did you eventually work it out?
Mr. Cawley. Well, to back up for a moment, then, after the aborted
stickup of the sporting goods store — incidentally, the information
that came hack later was they were not there to stick the store up for
84
the money, but rather to procure arms — the four gunmen turned out
to be of the Muslem sect, Hanifi, which was having some difficulty
apparently with the orthodox sect, and they felt the need to arm
themselves.
In the first exchange of gunfire that Chief Eisdorfer described to
you, when the owner came out the side door, one of our patrolmen
was wounded. Then the gunfire continued from the front of the store,
after some of the emergency service personnel arrived, and that is
when Patrolman Stephen Gilroy was shot and killed.
We also had Patrolman Frank Carpentia, who attempted to move
a radio vehicle in front of the body of Patrolman Gilroy. He was
shot in the knee. Through the grace of God and good medical atten-
tion and 20 transfusions of blood, I believe, he survived and is home
recuperating.
From that point on I think it is important to know once we organized
and placed the control of the field operation in either Chief Eisdorfer
he had direct control, but I then later, as the field commander, and the ,
chief inspector, consulting with the field connnanders and Inspector I
Freeman, who was on the street making strategic adjustments of per-
sonnel, there were some 40-odd shots from inside tlie sporting goods
store at the rescue vehicle that we employed and at windows and r*adios
on cars on the outside.
But after the initial exchange until the time of surrender, there
was not one shot fired by a New York City police officer.
I think that was achieved by virtue of making — going back to the
hostage training and thinking through how to deal with that type
of problem, the decision was made that the immediate vicinity of 'the
sporting goods store would be policed and covered and sniper posts at
points established by Chief Eisdorfer or Inspector Freeman, manned
by the emergency service division personnel.
Mr. Lynch. Chief, you did receive requests from patrolmen, did
you not, during this incident, asking they be allowed to fire at targets
within the sports store? Senior commanders were asked that, were
they not ?
Mr. Cawley. The men who were pinned down, waiting to be rescued,
we had some six of them in front of the store, did not, to my knowl-
edge—well, ask Chief Eisdorfer to respond to that. He is probably
more conversant in it— did not request authorization to fire into the
store.
Mr. Lynch. That wasn't the point of the question. I guess my ques-
tion wasn't too clear. It was my understanding that on several occa-
sions officers had requested permission to shoot when thev saw one or
more of the perpetrators in the store. They were denied "that permis-
sion on the premise that such action would be permitted if, and only
if, all perpetrators were i^resent at the same time.
Mr. Eisdorfer. Yes. This happened earlv Friday evening when we
received word from one of the assault teams placed across the street
in one of the adjacent restaurants inquiring to ask whether they could
fire. We advised them; we directed that thev not fire unless we could
get all at the same time. Since that was an impossibility we did not
fire. In other words, there was no fii-iiiir at individual targets, at targets
of opportunity. We refused to go along with that; and it appears as
if — that is the way we originally set up our plan.
Mr. Lynch. How many policemen were on the scene surrounding
that sports store, roughly ?
S6
Mr. EiSDOKFKR. Ivouglily, at the most, we only had 10 teams of 2 men,
20 i)atrolmon holdino; down that whole area, surromiding that sports
store. Of course, around the ])arameter, I would say an area of five
blocks away, we foi-med a circle and had a perimeter around this to
keep people out and the transportation out, and so foiih. We had
approximately 1?>0 to 140 holdiii<r this down all the time. So, actually,
Ave admittedly, by holding the perimeter down and holding the assault
teams down, containing this action, we enabled the city and the rest
of the police department to function normally.
In other words, our service throughout the city was normal except
for my division's containment within this area. That was our original
plan.
Mr. Lynch. How many senior commanders would have been on
the scene at any given time ?
Mr. Cawlp.y. Before I respond to tliat, may I, and I apologize for
not introducing Deputy Inspector Arthur Freeman on my left, who
was very much a part of the Williamsburg scene and made a large
number of critical decisions. He was a commander that rotated every 12
hours with Chief Eisdorfer and was very instrumental in establishing
the assault positions and the sniper control position covering thui
store.
I would like him, if it is agreeable to you, to briefly describe how
the posts were selected and the policies that we established in terms of
manning those posts. I think it would be helpful and I would be happy
to have him respond to that.
Statement of Arthur A. rreeman
Mr. Freeman. We have spoken to many police officers from various
cities throughout the country for the past 3^ear and a half on our ex-
change program, and we find this particular problem of confronta-
tion with barricaded situations, holding hostages, is a fairly new ball
game.
We respond to barricades and snipers and utilize the men first on
the scene. Xow, we find with the seizure of the hostages, whether ter-
rorist groups, fanatical groups, or aborted robbery, we find now that
we have a situation that so-called bogs down. They seize hostages and
the initial response by the patrol in the precinct area now is involved
in a little more of a unique or new type of situation.
What we did last September when we formulated these guidelines,
we wanted to spell out the particular duties of each unit that would
respond to these confrontations. And speaking to these people from
around the country, they had the same particular problem. Our
problem is not to get many people to the scene; it is to get the people
to the scene to control, contain, and evacuate the unit parameter with
as few men as possible.
In our guidelines we spelled out the particular duties of the patrol
force, emergency service of New York City, detectives, communica-
tions; each unit would have a play in this particular operation. The
patrolmen that responded initially would size up the situation and
they would contain tlie perpetrator. If he was holding a hostage, we
would take no overt act that would endanger the hostage's life.
We find from experience the perpetrator that does seize a hostage,
he doesn't kill one of them if he is holding several at the outset.
86
Chances are he won't take their lives, chances are. We find out that
sets on our side. .
The first unit to get there, we spell their duties out m the guide-
lines, to keep him within a parameter, control that particular area
and evacuate the people that are in danger. When we say "control,"
we mean the superior present at that stage controls every shot that
may be fired. The officers will report what they see, but the immediate
superior at that stage will direct the operation.
He must control every position. Then we go further and say that
the detective that would respond have a function. Then the emergency
service that responds, they have a function. And it is spelled out. The
emergency service being a unit that has the firepower, protective gear,
bulletproof vest, and so on, we say that when they get to the scene
they will relieve the initial response of the patrolman at the particular
scene, lock this perpetrator in, contain him, play for time, don't do
anything that may cause damage or harm to a hostage.
Now, these teams put around the parameter are only teams of two
men— the superior. And the complete reason for this is to lock them
in and have control of that in the parameter. To have control of the
firepower. No independent action. We call them containing teams.
They are properly suited and armed and have radios with one fre-
quency, radio band, we can talk within a parameter, direct, person to
person. We control them ; we contain them. We evacuate.
We have a team that we refer to as an assault team. This is contain-
ing team, two men, superior, properly armed, suited. We spell out
everything that may happen in this particular stage. The perpetrator
may come out of the store, building, or office with a hostage. No one
takes any action unless an assault team is directing.
All possibilities that may take place are decided upon; preplans
for every contingency, and it is spelled out. We have a detective
•assigned to a particular incident and their job is the same. It is spelled
out as drivers, particular cars if cars are needed to move in a par-
ticular operation in that location, negotiators.
Mr. Brasco. Inspector, being a resident of Brooklyn, and in com-
munication with the news media, TV. I think I understand and appre-
ciate your dilemma. As I understand it. there was some pressure from
the rank-and-file members of the department, and maybe on up, to
return fire, particularly after the hostages were taken out of the build-
ing. I think, notwithstanding those pressures and the ultimate outcome
of the situation, that the department did a fine job.
I contract this situation with the kind of shooting match that took
place in New Orleans at approximately the same time. There we could
have had a real slaughter situation.
My question is: Aside from that particular action in terms of re-
straint and, of course, final outcome, I am wondering if we could just
reverse it so that I could get, and the committee could get, some
insights for the record, as to the plans you intended to employ, if you
are at liberty to talk about them.
Suppose the hostages were not able to get out of the building, as
they did, through a side door or an entrance on the roof that one of
the owners laiew about, what would have been the plan at that time?
Mr. Cawley. I would like to respond to that, if I may.
87
Tliere were a number of contingency plans developed attempting
to deal with any eventuality, hoping at all times, of course, we could
pursue the course we decided upon very early ; that is, we would prac-
tice a policy of firm restraint and, hopefully, continue to negotiate and
eventually talk them out of the building. In the event that failed the
plans were based upon the safety of the hostages.
I can appreciate your wanting to reverse it, but perhaps if we went
the other way you might understand why we were pretty confident
we might be able to talk them out. There were a ntimber of early indi-
cations that we might be successfid if we just practiced a great deal of
patience and restraint.
We were ready to deal with the other. It would have been a very
unfortunate course of action if we were forced to do it. The building
A\ as almost a fortress. The side door was made with a steel plate. The
interior of the building was structured in such a way — there was a
balcony overlooked the front door — in that there was no way of police
officers coming through the front without being fired upon from that
balcony.
We developed other contmgency plans should the occasion arise
where they might have killed a hostage and thrown one out and said,
'"Tliat is the first and there will be another one in a half hour." If that
came to pass, then, obviously, there would have to be a very quick
strategy and policy decision and determination of how quickly you
go in and lio\\' best you go in. You could not very well sit back and
have tiiat occur.
As to what we had in mind in the long run : One of the factors that
really encouraged the escape attempt was the preliminary expiration
of one of those contingency plans. We began to test the structure of the
building trying to see where we might pat in, if you will, and get a
A'antage point that would look down on the gunmen who were looking
down on us. As we started to probe, I think for the first time, some 43
hours later, they lost their cool, if you will, and made their first major
mistake. They ran together, the three of them, and left the hostages
alone. The hostages liaving banded at that point is where Mr. Ric-
cio, knowing there was a false door, rushed them up to the rooftop,
which gave us several anxious moments at the top there, as one, Mr.
Iviccio I think it was, emerged with a gun, not knoAving whether it was
a hostage or gunman.
yre liad a captain sitting on the top of that position who practiced
the restraint and cool we were looking for. He quickly assessed the
situation, determined it T\-as the nine liostages, dropped the ladder, and
we took them off the roof. And once the hostages were out the gunmen
fired several shots up through the ceiling in their frustration, but
we had the hostages.
In anv event, the new ballgame occurs when the nine hostages are
no lo:iger being held, and there is no immediate need at this point to
risk the lives of police officers attempting to enter the building, as
long as we were confident in making some progression in the negotia-
tions. And we were very confident we were doing that.
I would like to go back to Friday night to clarify a point. It all
sounds like it is vevy smooth, and I would like to think it was, btit,
of course, at the beginning point of an incident of this nature in which
police officers are shot and robberies are in progress, a lot of radio
95-158 — 73— pt. 1 7
88
calls are responding, there is qnite a bit of confusion, as j'oii can well
appreciate. As Chief Eisdorfer described it, it was a busy business
street. There was an elevator overhead that further complicated it
with the rumblings of the plane.
There was an air of general confusion, as there always is initially.
The sergeant came on the scene and began to pull it bade very quickly.
Notifications were made to the proper offices and people responded to
that scene. I would say it took us some 3 hours before we were able
to put all of our patrol precinct personnel back into their assignments
and then start to look at the control of that particular incident with
the specialized units.
Chairman Pepper. What was the conclusion of it? How did you get
them out ?
Mr. Cawley. One of the indications that negotiations might prove
successful was when they released their first hostage. We then found
out one of the gunmen had been wounded. They made two basic
requests. One was for food and the other was for a doctor.
Accompanying that hostage was a message from one of the gun-
men who liad drafted a letter, and part of it — I don't have it with
us, I am sure — but, in essence, he said everybody Avas prepared to
die and go to paradise. There was a basic inconsistency with wanting
to go there. The fellow who was possibly halfway there, they didn't
want to hurry him in there. So we were kind of optimistic, perhajDS
they would listen to reason.
We used this rescue vehicle. We attempted to put them under psvf^lio-
logicai pressure by continually calling for them to surrender and
to turn the hostages loose so they wouldn't have a very comfortable
moment. They would always have to live with concern for wliat we
were going to do next. We kept up that pressure for several hours.
During the early morning hours — and I am just giving you the
overview- — we used that rescue vehicle as a means of having a minister
go in, roll up near the front of the sporting goods store and attempt to
reason with them and ask them to come out.
Incidentally, I think it is accurate to say that every time the ve-
hicle was used it was greeted by gunfire.
Mr. Brasco. a bulletproof vehicle ?
Mr. Cawley. Yes.
Also, during the early morning hours of Saturday, we had several
muslem priests come and volunteer their services, to go in and speak
with them. Two, in fact, went into the vehicle. They agreed to have
one meet with them. The meeting lasted some 5 minutes and was
unsuccessful.
Chairman Pepper. Describe the rescue vehicle.
Mr. Cav.'t.ey. We have a specially prepared vehicle that is an
armored vehicle that we put together, 1 guess, some 5 years ago. Mavbe
I ought to pass this to Chief JEisdorfer and he might be able to give
you some kind of a better idea of the description of what it looks like.
Mr. Eisdorfer. It is a 21-ton vehicle, tracked, armored proof, and
it is able to hold approximately 12 to 15 men inside. It opens up
through the middle, in the rear.' in between the tracks, and if it goes
over somebody — using part of the vehicle as a front — we could take
these people into the vehicle and extricate them safely from the scene.
That is what it was used for. We had six policemen pinned down,
plus a few civilians, before we could get them out. Once we did get
89
them out. we moved the vehicle, right to the front of the store. It docs
have a loudsi)eaker system and Ave Avere able to get our ideas across.
Chairman Pkppp:r. It is bulletproof ?
Mr. EiSDORFER. It is bulletproof. We didn't have any armor on. in
other words, to shoot or anything like that ; no. It is a very effective
weapon. Psychologically, it" did scare them, it did unnerA^e them, and
I think that played an important role in our final decision.
Mr. Lyxcii. Chief, I wonder if you could tell us to Avhat extent you
and Inspector Freeman, who were both on the scene along with Chief
Cawley, attribute the fortunate outcome to the hostage training Avhich
you had, I believe, in September of 1972. Did that training play an
important part in this incident ?
Mr. EiSDOEFER. I would say it played a very important part in the
incident. I think it played practically a complete role. We weren't pre-
pared for this type of incident. Our men Averen't trained. Time was
on our side and we felt sooner or later the criminals must make an
error. They must make a mistake. They made that mistake. We were
there and we were ready to take every opportunity that we would
haA'e.
Mr. Lyxcii. And the training you had, the training you described,
you Averen't talking about classroom lectures you were talking about
"war game"' type situations.
Mr. EiSDORFF.R. Field problem ; right.
Mr. Brasco. Counsel, if I may.
Gettiiiir back, if I might, to the point Avhero the liostages were re-
leased, I suspect that Avas probably the time Avhen the most restraint
on the part of the department in understanding the situation had to
come into play.
Again, I feel the department acquitted itself A'ery Avell under the
circumstances, because in the final analysis you had to play it by ear
and, as Inspector Eisdorfer indicated, you have to look for the breaks
when they come and if they come, and apparently they did.
But to be specific, these men ultimately came out as a result of your
negotiation team, the doctor, and assurances that they Avouldn't be mis-
treated on their Avay out ; and they Averen't. But hoAv long, now absent
the hostages being in that building, Avas the department prepared to
stav outside? Was there, again, the possibility that action had to be
taken to forcibly extricate the defendants from the sporting goods
shon ?
Mr. Caavley. Once the hostages escaped. Congressman ?
Mr. Brasco. Yes.
Mr. Caweey. Once the hostages escaped, I, certainly — and I am sure
T am speaking for the police commissioner as well as the other respon-
sible people — felt no obligation to go in there at the risk of police
lives. HoAv long Avould I haA-e sat there? It is A^ery difficult to say. But
1 am a very patient man and I Avould not have sent police officers into
Avhat I kncAv to be an impossible situation, where, in my judgment and
in discussing it Avith staff at the time, I might have lost 8 to 10 police
officers.
Mr. Brasco. I am A'orA' yjleased you made that statement and that
judgment. T think that Avas tlie coirect determination to make. I was
just wondering if there Avas any cutoff plan as a result of the train-
ing that might be implemented ifnder those circumstances AA'here you
have no hostages, but people on the inside avIio refuse to come out.
90
Mr. Cawley. There are no plans that you can formulate that would
say in any given situation, be willing to stay 24 hours in one situa-
tion and "in another, 48. It would very much depend upon the cir-
cumstances, the progress being made with any other efforts underway.
At the time the hostages escaped from the building we had the
mother, brother, and uncle of the man we thought to be the leader of
the four gunmen inside, at which time we put her — she volunteered —
into the rescue vehicle. She went on the public address system and
told her son she was there and wanted to talk to him.
She then got on the telephone and there were very meaningfid dis-
cussions between the mother, son, brother, and the uncle, and the longer
those discussions were kept going tlic more optimistic we became. And,
thank God, within 4 hours they did emerge.
Chairman Pepper. Did you have to make any commitment to them
that they would not be prosecuted ?
Mr. Cawley. No; we did not make any commitment to them. Mr.
Chairman. Earlier, on Saturday, when prospects were dim and there
was very little progress being made and very little place to go, we had
Dr. Tom ISIathew, who evenfually did come down and enter the sport-
ing goods store, we had two attorneys, Mr. Katz and Mr. Left-
cort, both of whom had represented Black Panthers in the past.
They came down and volunteered to attempt to communicate with
the four gunmen and see if they could convince them to come out, and
they would have the best of legal representation.
They did talk to one of the gunmen on the inside via walkie-talkie,
but at'no point in their discussion was there anv agreement or under-
standing we would not prosecute them according to the laws of our
State.
Chairman Pepper. So they came out. The only promise being you
wouldn't shoot them as they came out. You would take them in custody.
Mr. Cawley. AVe promised them the man who was injured would
receive medical treatment. They would be treated professionally. We
v.ould bring them to the precinct station and they would be
interrogated.
The district attorney from Kings County was present, as was sev-
eral members of the staff. They assured them of that as well, and that
was it. There were no other basic commitments made to them.
Chairman Pepper. Have they been tried so far ?
^Ir. Cawley. They have been indicted. They have not been tried
as yet.
One of the other interesting innovations which was put in during
the course of this scene, and I think is well worth making part of the
record, was the creation of a "think tank" on the part of the police
commissioner that consisted of the various capabilities by our ranking
cormnanders and deputy commissioners, who met on the 2i-hour basis
on 12-hour periods as we were working. They were available to me in
the field, as well as Chief Cod wlien lie came in behind me. if I
had any problems I wanted to toss in there for kicking around and
possible clevelopments.
For example, when we were thinldng about the contingency plans,
someone that would be able to make a contact with the department
of buildings, which is tough to do on Saturday and Sundav, would
be able to give us an engineei', deputy commissioner of administration.
And that team concept, thinking through the problem in the station-
91
house, which is about a mile and a half from the scene itself, without
having- to do the thinking underneath the sounds of gunfire, and able
to think things through perhaps in, like, other than a field setting,
I think, was a very important contribution,
I think it is important you know we put that concept in.
Chairman Pepper. Excellent. I think it Avas excellent cooperation.
Mr. Cawley. Thank you.
Mr. Lynch. Chief Cawley, you had communications capability with
any one of the 10 2-man teams surrounding the sports store ; is that
correct ?
Mr. Cawley. Not completely. Let me attempt to explain the or-
ganization that we put in.
I was designated, during my 12-hour segment, as field commander.
Chief Eisdorfer was on-the-seat commander, if you will. It was he
that was in continual touch with the assault positions and sniper's
post. I had an assistant chief inspector from the uniformed service
present as my immediate contact man with Chief Eisdorfer, so there
was the continual conferring, so there was some idea of how to handle
that.
Mr. Lynch. But a senior commander did have communication capa-
bility with all of the various teams around the store?
Mr. Cawley. Yes. Continually and periodically whenever the gim-
fire came out of the building and on occasion came out for no ap-
parent reason, other than I guess to keep us alert. The command
would buzz over the radio from Inspector Freeman or Chief Eisdorfer
to hold your fire and just try to create a climate, as difficult as it might
be, in that kind of a setting of trying to keep it calm and poised and
just wait — have some respect for our judgment, where the commanders
will make the good judgments for you, we will tell you when you
should and shouldn't use that weapon.
Mr. Lynch. Has the New York Police Department provided hostage
training, similar to that which it has given to its o^vn men, to any
other department, or have you been requested to provide that kind of
training ?
Mr. Freeman. We have continually throughout the year. The emer-
gency service men go to a school for 5 days, Monday through Friday.
It is an 8-hour day in classroom. Since September and October of last
jeav we have made Monday barricade, sniper, hostage, consultations.
That is the entire day.
Because of this incident in Brooklyn, publicity, many departments
have requested to attend or send some of their planning officers to our
school. We have been doing that on a small scale. We have been send-
ing two men from different departments each Monday. One day
for the hostage situation. During our course in September and Octo-
ber of last year we did have representatives from about 12 major cities
attend our course with our captains. They sat in.
It appears the cities are scrambling to get an overall operation that
can coordinate a major task force of dissimilar units. We tell them, you
don't have to have oO,000 people in the department to do this, you only
need 4, 5, 6, or even 3 containing teams. We say you control the imme-
diate parameter with as few men as possible, with radio communica-
tion, under one field commander with subcommanders working under
his direction, coordinating the different units that do respond.
92
Very basically, that is it. That is a hostage operation. Each one
loiows what they are doing. Each unit knows their job — which unit
will be the containing, affirmative, assault team, and so on.
Mr. Lynch. I have only one final question, Chief Cawley. You
mentioned the commissioner had established a so-called think tank
comj^osed of senior people in the department which operated away
from the scene and away from the gunfire. Did the think tank provide
you with any valuable advice during this incident ?
Mr. Cawley. They did. Saturday evening, at the end of, I think
it was 6 o'clock, I attended a briefing sessions in tlie 90th precinct in
which the police commissioner was present and all of the members who
were going to participate as think tank members, if you will. It was
their job to be receptive to our problems in the field.
I would telephone the men and ask them to give it some thought,
that when they had some suggestion I might consider as being useful,
that I would very much appreciate getting that call back. That meet-
ing lasted some hour and a half. It was an updating, a briefing session,
in addition to tlie beginning of the think tank.
Friday evening on the telephones, the police commissioner and top
members were communicating regularly with the command post.
When I returned at 7 o'clock on Sunday morning I attended a brief-
ing session with the think tank members. I think it was from 9 to 11,
at which time a lot of different suggestions were put in, such as, with-
out getting too involved, putting in beeper systems into cars that
might be necessary if there was a decision made that we would move
the gimmen, if that were one of the alternatives we would be faced
with. Those beepers were tied into helicopters if we had to take them
out on the highways.
Decisions made about closing up schools, should we have to make
a move for Monday and stay still another night. Coordinating the
notification with the transit authority, the municipal agencies that
were involved.
All in all, the people who fit in that environment and are not deal-
ing with the pressure of the moment that occurs in the field setting,
are capable of giving a great deal more thought to what might be
tried. Clearly, certainly clearly understood from the outset, the ulti-
mate decision would rest with the field commander, based on all of
the inputs.
It is a by ear operation. There comes a time when decisions must be
made very quickly, and it has to be done based upon as much informa-
tion as you have, which is what the "think tank" was useful in doing :
Giving you more alternatives to take into account before that decision
had to be made.
!Mr. Lyxch. T have no further questions.
Mr. NoLDE. Chief Cawley, do you have a policy regarding inter-
viewing the media in situations like this, particularly television?
Mr. Caavley. We have a deputy commissioner of public informa-
tion. It is a special post. And there is an office of press information,
known as public information. The deputy commissioner of public in-
formation was on the scene starting Friday night. We respect his
judgments. He makes the assessment as to how to best deal with the
press.
We discuss with him what the press should be told and what it
should not bo told in the interest of operation efficiency.
93
We also appreciate the need for the press and the news media to
report the operations of the police service in dealincr with the problem.
Mr. NoLDE. In other words, you attempt to establish what the facts
are and fjet it out to the media in a way that is objective as opposed
to iMiiioi's flyinjx?
Mr. Cawley. Right, Mr. Nolde. It is very much a controlled situa-
tion. We establish liaison with the press, we establish a press area,
and that area is selected considering both their need for being close
enough to ha\e some feel for tliat situation so they can report on it.
On tlie other side of that, so we are comfortable with knowing we are
not putting them into a position of jeopardy.
Certainly, in a possible shootout situation, they were removed to a
place we felt comfortable with.
^Ir. NoLDE. So in this particular situation the media didn't pose any
problems to add to the incendiary nature of the situation?
Mr. Cawley. No. We had them placed some 2 blocks away from the
location, with somebody that kept them updated in terms of what was
going on. The only thing we ever ask of the press in a situation of
that nature is that they be responsible. There were certain pieces of
information we would rather not have released at the particular mo-
ment because of tactical advantages we might have.
I think, in all honesty, we had one little problem concerning one of
the storekeepers that was trapped in across the street. I think some
enterprising and very energetic member of the media did manage to
find out the phone number in there and was talking to him directly.
B^t it did not pose any major problem to us.
Once we heard the radio station interviewing this fellow live, we
quickly found out, obviously, wliich station, and had a pretty good
idea which door, and appealed to the station to discontinue it.
riiairman Pepper. Gentleman, just this. Your testimony about this
magnificent training program you have and about the splendid co-
ordination of all of the personnel that were engaged in dealing with
this problem, and about this special vehicle, brings back to my mind
the Attica situation. Several of the members of our committee went
up to Attica on Friday of the tragic week and we stayed there 2
days. Later on officials from Attica testified, as did inmates and other
people, before our committee.
I am no military authority, but it occurred to me at that time that if
there had been a gunship, say. like the INIarines have, with two or
three or four trained men in that armored gunship, instead of the
helicopter that came over and pumped the gas and had the ship been
manned maybe by military personnel or competent and well-trained
police personnel, law-enforcement personnel, and if they had sud-
denly appeared over that scene in that courtyard and called out to
thorn over a loud speaker. "We have got you covered. We can see
where the hostages are and if anv hostage is shot, we will shoot every
man around the hostage who was shot, or who is cut with a knife."
1 believe it would have so surprised all of those inmates if they
had seen those ofuns sticking out of tliat giniship and had heard it up
there and heard those competent men in uniform.
I think it is entirelv possible that those men would haA'e been intim-
idated and they could have held them nnder <runs until the peor)le
came in from the outside with weapons and covered them from
94
the ground. I didn't disparage or discredit in any way the dedication
and the diligence and best manner in which the people in charge
up there conducted the operation, but I spoke to a Marine general not
long ago about such an operation as that. Would it have been feasible ?
He said, "Yes, it would have been feasible."' I don't know whether it
would have worked or not, but it would have been feasible under
that particular circumstance.
Do you care to make any comment about that sort of thing ?
Mr. Cawley. We have used the vehicle not as an offensive machine,
but rather as we used it in Williamsburg, as a rescue vehicle. It en-
abled us to take out six police officers pinned down. It also enabled
us to take out of the stores a number of customers as well as owners
on both sides of the street.
It did give us a substantial psychological edge, I believe.
Chairman Pepper. It looked like a tank to the men on the inside ?
Mr. Cawlet. It resembles it ; but it is not what it looks like, but how
you use it. We did use it strictly on a rescue operation. It was not used
offensively. It is very difficult to comment on anybody's action in a
given situation of this sort because there are so many considerations
that come into play. I think one must make the decision on the instant
events as they unfold.
Chairman Pepper. Gentlemen, again we want to thank you in the
warmest way for what you have given us here today ; for helping us
to make a record which we hope will be helpful to other police depart-
ments in the country. Some others who have had similar problems are
going to be testifying here and we will be interested to see what sort
of training programs they have and how they coordinated there activi-
ties, and the like.
Thank you again. We are very proud you are on the police force of
one of our gi'eat cities.
Mr. Cawlet. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the oppor-
tunity of informing you about the new innovations we put into effect
in New York and the opportunity of reading into the record what I
consider to be an outstanding example of police professionalism as dis-
played in Williamsburg.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much.
The committee will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning,
when we will meet in this room.
(Whereupon, at 6 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at
10 a.m., on Tuesday, April 10, 1973.)
STREET CRIME IN AMERICA
(The Police Response)
TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1973
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on Crime,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met. pursuant to notice at 10 :25 a.m., in room 311,
Cannon House Office Building, the Honorable Claude Pepper (chair-
man) presiding.
Present: Representatives Pepper, Brasco, Mann, Rangel, Wiggins,
"Winn, Sandman, and Keating.
Also present: Chris Nolde, chief counsel; Richard Lj^nch, deputy
chief counsel ; and Leroy Bedell, hearing officer.
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
During the morning we will hear from the New Orleans Police De-
partment regarding the Howard Johnson-Essex incident. During the
afternoon we will have testimony from Indianapolis regarding its
fleet plan and its civilian-oriented police program. Also, we will near
from Cincinnati regarding its community sector police program.
The first presentation this morning will be by the police department
of the city of New Orleans.
Mr. Lynch, will you proceed.
]Mr. Lynch. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I am happy to introduce to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members
of this committee, Mr. Giarrusso, superintendent of police of the New
Orleans Police Department. As you know, that is a major police
agency with a complement of some 2,000 people. Superintendent
Giarrusso is a veteran of 28 years of police service and holds an LL. B.
degree from Loyola University.
Superintendent Giarrusso, I wonder if you could at this time intro-
duce the members of your department who are here to testify with
vou this morning.
PANEL or NEW ORLEANS (LA.) POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS:
GIARRUSSO, CLARENCES., SUPERINTENDENT;
KASTNER. JOHN H., DETECTIVE ;
MARTIN, RINAL L., SERGEANT ;
POISSENOT, LLOYD J., MAJOR: AND
WOODFORK, WARREN G., SERGEANT;
ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM D. WALKER, REPORTER, WWL-TV
Mr. Giarrusso. Yes, sir. Mr. Pepper, members of the committee,
I would like to introduce Maj. Lloyd J. Poissenot, the commanding
officer of the patrol division of the New Orleans Police Department.
(95)
96
John H. Kastner, a patrolman, who conducted the investigation from
the very beginning of the Howard Johnson incident. Sgt. Rinal L.
Martin, who commands what we call the urban squad in New Or-
leans. We believe this was an innovative response to a great need that
existed at that particular time. Sgt. Warren G. Woodfork, who com-
mands what we call the felony action squad in New Orleans.
Chairman Pepper. Superintendent Giarrusso, we are very pleased
to have you and your associates here today.
Mr. Giarrusso. Thank you, sir.
]Mr. Lynch. Superintendent Giarrusso, as you know, we are very
interested in hearing testimony from you regarding the New Orleans
Howard Johnson, so-called Essex incident. From the viewpoint of
this committee it seems that this would be an examination of, in essence,
a new kind of crime. We have had crimes of terror before, going back
to the Starkweather episode, the episode in Illinois where the young
man, Richard Speck, murdered seven or eight nurses. But within the
past several years we have seen crimes that involve some political over-
tones, crimes of terror, involving people from radical groups. That
appears to be the case in the incident in your city.
I wonder if at this time you could briefly describe to this committee
the events surrounding that incident, the police department's response
to it, and how it ended.
Mr. Giarrusso. Yes, sir; I will be happy to. I have a report from
which I have deleted those things I consider extraneous for this meet-
ing and if you don't mind, I would like to read it.
Chairman Pepper. You may proceed.
Mr. Giarrusso. This report deals with the Howard Johnson incident.
An investigation by the New Orleans Police Department, which be-
gan December 31, 1972, developed evidence which proved conclusively
that a rifle used on December 31, 1972, and January 7, 1973, the instru-
ment used to kill nine persons and wound nine others, was one regis-
tered in the name and recovered beside the body of Mark J. Essex.
While the evidence collected was persuasive that all rounds of ammuni-
tion fired from the rifle on these two dates were fired bv Essex, it was
not definitely determined if Essex did or did not have one or more ac-
complices or coconspirators in the criminal acts committed on those two
dates.
A reconstruction of the events in the period December 31, 1972, and
January 7, 1973, in which Essex was known to be involved, based on the
evidence collected during the investigation and, further, on certain
assumptions, indicates that on or about December 31, 1972, Essex,
either alone or with accomplice(s), under cover of darkness, took up a
position in vacant lots adjacent to Perdido Street and to the rear of
New Orleans Police Department central lockup, which is actual head-
quarters, and at approximately 10 :55 p.m., fired seven rounds of .44
caliber magnum ammunition into the sallyport of central lockup,
killing Police Cadet Alfred Harrell and wounding Lt. Horace Perez.
Following the firings, Essex took a route from the lots, across the
I-IO expressway, to a building housing the Burkart Manufacturing
Co. plant.
In gaining entrance to the Burkart Manufacturing Co., Essex set
off an ADT alarm system. Either when entering the plant through a
window, or within the plant, Essex inflicted a superficial wound on his
person.
97
Patrolmen Edwin Plosli and Harold Blappcrt responded to the
alarm. As Patrolman Hosli prepared to release a K-9 dog, at approxi-
mately 11 :15 p.m., he was shot from behind and seriously wounded
w'ith a .44 caliber magnum bullet. Hosli succumbed on March 5, 1973.
Following the shooting of Patrolman Hosli, Essex fled the Burkart
Building to a church located on South Lopez Street.
On January 2, at approximately 0 p.m., Essex purchased a razor and
blades at Joe's Grocery, located in the 4200 block of Erato Street.
Essex's whereal)outs or actions from the evening of January 3 to
January 7 at approximately 10 a.m., were not known.
On January 7, 1973, at approximately 10:15 a.m., Essex entered
Joe's Gi ocery, ordered the grocer, "'You come here," and shot him in
the chest with a .44-caliber magnum bullet.
Essex, evidently having no prearranged escape plan, ran from the
store to 1506 South White Street, where he observed a car owned and
occupied by Marvin Albert, with the engine idling. He ordered Albert
from the car, at rifle point, got into the car and proceeded in the
direction of jNIelpomene and Broad Streets.
At approximately 10:40 a.m., the stolen car driven by Essex was
involved in a hit-and-run accident at the intersection of Washington
Avenue and Dupre Street. The victim copied the license number of
the car.
Essex, in the stolen vehicle, was next observed by a witness enter-
ing, at a higli rate of speed, the parking garage of the downtown
Howard Johnson. Next he was observed in the vicinity of the fourth
floor of the garage by other ]:)ei'sons as he abandoned the car, and
entered the south or Gravier Street stairwell of the motel.
Essex asked two employees on tlie eighth floor to let him in the room
accommodations part of the motel. They refused his request and ob-
served him running up the stairs. He was next observed in the stair-
well on the ninth floor, where he asked an employee on duty to let him
in. and again his request was refused. Essex then proceeded to the 18th
floor and gained entrance to the room accommodations section.
Upon gaining entrance to the 18th-floor level, it was assumed Essex
attempted to start a fire and tliat Dr. Robert Stegall, a guest of the
motel, observed Essex's arson attempt and intervened. A struggle be-
tween Essex and Dr. Stegall followed and Essex shot Dr. Stegall
through the heart with a .44 magnum bullet. Elizabeth Stegall, wnfe of
Robert Stegall, while cradling her fatally wounded husband, was
executed by Essex when he placed the barrel of the rifle near the back
of her head and fired. The autopsy report conclusively shows that
Elizabeth and Robert Stegall were' individually killed. Essex either
lost or intentionally left a red, green, and black flag near the bodies of
the Stegalls.
Essex w^as next reported on the 11th floor. He gained entrance by
blasting the lock off the door leading to that level and attempted to
set fires on that level.
Frank Schneider, assistant manager of the motel, who had gone to
the 11th flooT- to investigate reports that a man with a gun was on
that level, was shot in the back of the head by Essex with a .44-ealiber
magnum bullet.
Essex then proceeded to the 10th flooi- and was met by Walter
Collins, manager of the motel, who also had gone to investigate reports
of a man with a gun. Collins w;;s shot by Essex with a .44 caliber
98
magnum bullet and succumbed from this inflicted wound on Janu-
ary 26, 1973.
Essex then went onto the roof of the eijrhth floor meeting room and
then to the eighth floor patio area. Here he shot Eobert Beamish with
n .44 caliber magnum bullet and set fires to rooms on that floor level.
Erom this level, he shot and wounded Fire Lieut. Tim Ursin, Patrol-
3nan Charles Arnold, Patrolman Kenneth Solis, Sgt. Emanuel Palmi-
sano, and fatally wounded Patrolman Phil Coleman.
In an attempt to escape from the motel, Essex returned to the fourth
floor parking garage level, where he had abandoned the stolen vehicle.
Police officers were in the area of the vehicle. Essex fired one shot
through the sflass section of the fourth street level door and went back
up the stairwell.
Essex was next observed on the 16th floor level of the motel. From
this level, he shot and killed Patrolman Paul Persigo and wounded
Joe. Anderson and Chris Cat on. Tie also set fires on this level.
Essex was next observed on the 17th floor level where he continued
to systematically set fires in guestrooms and the corridor. He entered
the Perdido Street stairwell and attempted to reach the roof level.
Deputy Superintendent Louis Sirgo. leading a search party for the
sniper, or snipers, and attempting to rescue two policemen who were
trapped in an elevator on the 18th floor leAcl. was shot in the back and
killed in the stairwell between the 15th and 16th floors.
Essex went onto the roof of the motel at approximately 1 p.m.
Patrolman Lawrence Arthur, suspecting that a sniper was on the
roof, opened the door on the Perdido Street side entrance and was
shot by Essex.
Essex subsequently positioned himself in a cubicle on the Gravier
Street side of the motel adjacent to the doorway entrance. In this
sheltered and protected position, he could not readily he seen from any
of the observation positions police officers had gained on high build-
ings in the area. Periodically shooting and shouting, Essex remained
at this location.
Due to the frenzied activities of Essex, in starting fires and shooting
from various levels, and information ])rovided by witnesses, it was not
definitely known if there were one or more persons committing those
criminal acts. At one point, witnesses reported that guests and/or
employees of the motel were being held as hostages.
The decision was made to systematically secure each floor of the
motel. Smoke and fumes from the several fires, and the need for
extraordinary caution for both the protection of guests, police officers,
and firemen, contributed to make this operation painstakinglv slow.
The decision was made to utilize a military helicopter with police
riflemen to fly over the room area and provide a more advantageous
position for firing at Essex and/or others. Shots were fired from and
into the cubicle.
At approximately 8 :50 p.m., when the helicopter was on its third
flight over the roof, Essex ran from the cubicle, firing at the helicopter
and was shot.
Reports from several observation points were to the effect that a
second subject could, at times, be seen on the roof. While these reports
were not definitely confirmed, they were from acceptably reliable
sources and dictated that extreme caution be exercised in and around
the motel.
99
At approximately 2 p.m., Monday, January 8, police officers entered
tlie roof area fron*! both the Perdido and Gravier Street sides and
searched the boiler room — the only access to this room was from the
roof. No one was found in the boiler room or on tlie roof area. Sys-
tematic searches were made of other areas of tlie motel and they, too,
were negative.
In a room on the 11th floor, four live .44 caliber magnum cartridges
were found. A jacket, identihed as one belonging to Essex, was foimd
on the eighth tloor. The jacket was reversible, dark blue on one side
and beige on the other. It contained a razor similar to the one pur-
chased by Essex at Joe's Grocery on January 2.
Interviews with witnesses who had seen Essex at close range in the
several situations described collaborated generally on his physical
appearance. There were conflicts in the description of liis dress, par-
ticularly the color of his clothing, some of which may be attributed
to the reversible jacket. One victim of the shooting, Robert Beamish,
described the gunman who shot him at close range on the eighth floor
patio as having a goatee, which Essex did not have.
In each of these above instances Essex was alone. At no time did any
witness observe Essex in the company of another person.
The investigation involved the thorough search of areas where it
is known that Mark Essex was present, the exchange of information
between local and Federal law enforcement officials, other criniinal
laboratory testing and verification of a number of objects, and inter-
views Avith more than 1.000 persons.
Mr. Ly^'cii. Thank you. Superintendent.
I wonder if you could tell us what emergency plan your depart-
ment had in effect prior to the Essex incident.
Mr. GiARRusso. AVe had plans to deal with natural disasters, emer-
gency situations, large crowds that do go to the city, and to deal with
armed militants; however, I might add at this stage of the game
that we did not have any plan at that time to deal with a Howard
Johnson affair per se.
Mr. Lyxcii. What kind of a hostage or sniper training had your
department received? Had any special squads received hostage or
sniper training ?
Mr. GiARRUsso. Yes. Prior to that we had a group which did deal
with emergency situations, and people who were trained to cope vrith
this type of affair. However, we had never been confronted with a
situation dealing with multiple incidents, such as occurred at the
Howard Johnson affair.
For example, there were firings from different levels of the motel ;
there were fires set on different levels of the motel, which led us to
believe at that time that there could have been more than one person.
We had to worry about the guests in the motel, as well as civilians
around the motel, who were being slain by a sniper.
Mr. Lynch. Deputy Superintendent Sirgo was the ranking officer
on the scene at the time he was killed ; is that correct ?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. I was the highest ranking officer.
Mr. Lynch. You were present ?
Mr. GiARRUsso. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. What time did you arrive at the scene of the incident,
Superintendent ?
100
Mr. GiARRusso. There is some confusion about the actual time that
I arrived. On the other hand, I was one of the first high-ranking offi-
cers that did arrive on the scene. I was on my way to the airport. There
were other officers, many other officers that preceded me there.
Mr. Lynch. I wonder if you could tell the committee how many
other law enforcement agencies participated in attempting to bring
the situation under control. Was it solely the New Orleans Police De-
partment or were other law enforcement agencies present ?
Mr. GiAERusso. No, sir; there was a response from, I think, at
least five or six other jurisdictions that surround New Orleans.
Mr. Lynch. Their appearance was in response to what? Had you
requested their assistance ?
Mr. GiARRusso. No, I hadn't. The media had announced to the
public Avhat was going on at the hotel and many of them voluntarily
arrived at the hotel.
Mr. Lynch. Were these individuals officers, or were they contin-
gents under command of senior officials that arrived from other
agencies ?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. In some instances it was individual officers and in
others they were led by a commanding officer. For example, State po-
lice arrived with the superintendent of State police.
Mr. Lynch. Did those officials report to you or did they proceed to
take independent action ?
Mr. GiARRUsso. Unfortunately, in most instances, independent ac-
tion was taken initially by these people, because there was a lack of
communication with these people.
Mr. Lynch. Why was there a lack of communication? Did you not
have the appropriate gear ? What was the reason for the lack of com-
munication ?
Mr. GiARRTJSSO. Quite simply, we didn't have the appropriate gear
at that time. We didn't have enough portable radios that were neces-
sary in this type of operation, but we did get those radios that were
available, and when we did set up communications with these people I
admit they made positive contributions.
Mr. Lynch. How did you handle that situation ? It seems to me that
it presented you with an additional problem, having other police per-
sonnel in and around the vicinity, not capable of communicating with
them individually. What action did you take ?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. Actually, they complicated and compounded a very
difficult situation initially. We sent men out to tell them to go near
police automobiles with New Orleans Police Department radios, so
that they could listen to wb.at was being said and the commands that
were given, so there would be unified responses to the firings that were
emanating from the motel at that time. So, I don't know the time,
but after communications were established with these people things
did aline, and we did move successfully with them.
Mr. Lynch. Superintendent, you indicated to one of our investiga-
tors that at one time during this incident a number of civilians showed
np ofTering their services, and that some of those civilians were armed.
Would you tell the committee how that came about ?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. There was an uiiaurhorized and unsolicited an-
nou7icement by a radio station in the city that the police were in need of
marksmen with high-powered scopes to assist them. Of course, needless
101
to say. tills was untrue, and several ])eoi)le did show u[) at the Howard
Johnson Motel so armed. This presented somewhat of a problem to us,
because we had to then tell them we didn't need them and ask them to
leave what was then a ver}' dangerous area.
Mr. Lyncii. AVere you able to detei-mine what newsman or what news
agency had broadcast that request ?
Mr. GiAKRUsso. We were. On the other hand, when it was investi-
gated. Officer Kastner reported to me that that radio station denied
doing it.
^ir. Lynch. Based on. that unsolicited call for help, which must have
complicated further the command and control situation, what do you
as a law enforcement official feel would be appropriate restrictions?
Should there be restrictions on civilians and especially on the news
media in the area around a situation such as the one that was confront-
ing you ?
Mr. GiAKRrsso. I believe that it is necessary, if there is a repetition of
the Howard Johnson aliair, to isolate the area to protect civilians that
are in that area. On the other hand, I do not believe it is necessary to
restrict the media. The media made positive contributions to the com-
nnmity at that time.
For example, as a result of media cooperation we were able to
minimize the amount of civilian traffic in the area. In addition to that,
the media did neutralize many rumors which were rampant at that
time.
Mr. Lyxcii. What were those rumors. Superintendent?
Mr. GiARRusso. They ran the ganuit all the wa\' from multiple
snipers in the building to other people, other snipers, attempting to
break through the police lines and reinforce the ones that were in the
motel.
Mr. Lynch. Did you have policemen on the scene who were in civil-
i a )i clothes?
Mr. GiARRUsso. Yes, we did. Unfortunately, many of our police re-
sponded in civilian clothes. They may have created some confusion to
outsiders. We know who they^ were, and will take measures to prevent
th:n in the future.
]\Ir. Lynch. What measures are those ?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. I w'ould not have anyone but police in uniform in
and around such an area again. I want them to be in uniform, and
furthermore, I would not permit the large number of police to respond
that did respond to that situation. We have a specially trained group
of approximately 100 men who would respond to a repetition of that
situation or similar situation.
Mr. Lynch. Could you tell us approximately how many police of-
ficers were on the scene prior to the time that you were able to establish
complete communication with the other law enforcement agencies
which were present ? Could you give us an estimate ?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. It is only a very rough estimate. I would say ap-
proximately 400 at one time, until we began to send men home.
Mr. Lynch. How many men did you send home, sir?
]\Ir. GiARRUSSO. I don't know. Major Poissenot was assigned that
task, so we could have relief the following daj^, when we saAv the thing
may go into the following day.
102
Mr. Lynch. You indicate that you have a special force of 100 men.
Have those men been specially trained subsequent to this incident ?
Mr. GiARRUsso. Subsequent to the Howard Jolmson incident we
recognized that the carnival was about 6 weeks away, and we would
have a very short, period of time to train men should people from other
sections of the State and/or the country decide to return to New
Orleans and pick up work that had been started there by an ex-
tremist. We did develop some special training for these situations.
We developed what we considered to be assault teams and confine-
ment teams, to isolate any area along the parade route that one or
more persons may decide to use as a grouping ground.
Mr. Lynch. Superintendent, you indicated that there were police
officers on the scene who were dressed in civilian clothes. Were any of
those officers in civilian clothes actually inside the hotel ?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. Yes, sir, in the motel.
Mr. Lynch. I believe that you indicated to one of our investigators,
a week or so ago, that at various times people appeared at windows
of the motel and that reports were coming down that there were addi-
tional snipers. Could those people have been law enforcement
officers ?
Mr. GiARRusso. It is possible ; however, I do not believe this was the
case. I think what actually occurred was that some of the people who
were in the motel, locked in their rooms, would leave their rooms and
periodically go to the balcony which faced the street, seeking help or
waving cloths or garments of some typo trying to attract attention.
This created some confusion among the police at that particular
time as well. I don't believe that our officers created any problem. I
can remember Sero-eant Woodfork being at the command desk when
he arrived, and I told him to remain there been use one bit of informa-
tion dealt with the fact that one of the snipers had a goatee, and I
certainly didn't want him out there being shot at.
There were situations like this that did require immediate responses,
intuitive responses, from the police.
Mr. Lynch. When did the police commence firing at Essex ? Was lie
fired upon when he was first seen on the roof, or were rounds fired
prior to that?
Mr. GiARRUsso. There were rounds fired prior to his entrance to tlie
roof level, yes, sir. I don't remember exactly, Wlien he was on the
patio level.' some of the policemen fired shots at him. That is where
the swimming pool is located.
Mr. Lynch. Did individual officers have the authority to fire at will,
so to speak, or was the authoritv to fire reserved to commanders ?
Mr. GiARRUSso. Initially, prior to setting up communications with
the men who had assumed positions in and around the building, I
believe the men fired at will. When we did establish communications,
I can remember talking to some of the people who had talked to some
policemen, who had talked to some of the guests who had come down
into the lobby of the motel where the command post was.
Mr. Lynch. I was interested in finding out who had given the
policemen authority to fire and when they were firing.
Mr. GiARRusso. Yes, sir. At that time they were firing in response
to somebody that either had fired at them or after having seen Essex.
When communications were established I set up certain priorities,
103
tlie first of which was the safety of the guests in the hotel, because
we had word at that time that hostages had been taken.
Mr. Lynch. Where did you get that word from i
Mr. GiARRUsso. Some of the guests who had trickled down to the
main floor. There was a great deal of confusion among the guests.
Mr. Lynch. Were those people evacuated from the building or did
the}' remain in the building i
Mr. GiARRusso. No, sir. They were not evacuated that night for
safety reasons. We kept them in the main floor of the motel.
j\lr. Lynch. And upper floors, 1 assume police officers were located
to insulate the civilians from the possibility of Essex coming down ?
Mr. GiARRUSSo. When we began a systematic search of the motel we
sealed it off, floor by floor and room by room.
Mr. Lynch. Superintendent, is it a departmental regulation that
officers keep track of the nmnber of rounds that they fire, and, if so,
can you tell us approximately how many rounds were fired by New
Orleans Police Department personnel ?
Mr. GiARRUsso. I would not even guess or attempt to guess the
number of rounds that were fired. I am sure there were many rounds
that were fired.
Mr. Lynch. It is our understanding at one time you called in a
helicopter equipped with high-powered arms of various kinds. When
was that done and what was the purpose behind that ?
Mr. GiARRUSSo. The helicopter was called in after the sniper had
assumed the position on the roof of the hotel which enabled him to
conceal himself from fire from anyone. I would describe it as a bunker.
It was a concrete shelter on the roof of the motel fi'om which we
could not dislodge him. At that time a decision was made to seek help
from the military in terms of acquiring an armored helicopter
from them.
Mr. Lynch. Was that helicopter manned by military personnel or
by policemen?
Mr. (xiARRusso. No, sir. It was piloted by a military man. On tlie
other hand, the police manned the helicopter with police weapons.
Mr. Lynch. What kind of weapons were those?
Mr. GiARRusso. Most of the weaj)ons in the helicopter were AR-15,
automatic weapons.
Mr. Lynch. And that fires a high-caliber projectile, does it not?
Mr. GiARRusso. I don't know.
Mr. Lynch. Is it armor piercing?
Mr. GiARRusso. No.
Mr. Lynch. Was it able to penetrate the concrete bunker, as vou
call it?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. No, sir. They could not penetrate the bunlver. The
purpose of asking them to come in with the helicopter was to pour
fire into the openings, hoping that one of the bullets would ricochet
and injure the fellow or neutralize him.
Mr. Lynch. Did that in fact happen?
Mr. GiARRUsso. W^e don't know whether or not it did.
Mr. Lynch. To the best of your knowledge, were any New Orleans
police officers or any other law enforcement personnel wounded by
shots from that helicopter?
95-158— 73— pt. 1 8
104
Mr. GiARRUsso. Yes, sir. In addition to tlie nine killed and the nine
"wounded, I think that we wounded six of our own as a result of rico-
chet bullets.
Mr. Lynch. "Were those bullets fired from tlie helicopter, or don't
you know?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. I am confident they were bullets fired from the
helicopter.
Mr. Lynch. These were men on floors beneath the roof 2
Mr. GiARRUSso. They were men in the stairwells leading to the roof.
They had sealed off the roof. And as a result of being there, of course,
in order to seal off that floor, we were determined not to let him down
again. Some of the shots went through the door, ricocheted, and hit
several of the men.
Mr. Lynch. I wonder if you could enumerate for us what kind of
weapons your men employed during this incident, in addition to weap-
ons carried on the helicopter ?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. Revolvers, carbine rifles, and on one occasion we man-
aged to get some high-powered rifles from sporting good stores in
order to penetrate some of the concrete that he was hiding behind.
They did make a hole about 1 foot wide in the concrete, in order to
then fire into it, hoping ricocheted bullets would strike him or neutral-
ize him.
Mr. Lynch. Subsequent to the time you 'were able to shoot and, in
fact, to kill Mr. Essex, had you had occasion to look into his background
and his criminal record ? And, if so, tell us if he did have a record.
Mr. GiARRFSso. He did not have a criminal record. We did, since the
operation, look into his background and his background indicated
tliat he was an average youth who had attended school and, of course,
was in the service. Subsequent to that, he returned home and then went
to Xew Orleans where he was employed in one of the Federal programs
there.
Mr. Lynch. Did he have a record of belonging to any militant
groups, or was there anything in his background that would indicate
he might be a likely person to take part in an incident like this ?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. We have no hard evidence linking him with any mili-
tant or extremist groups. Thei-e is some evidence in New Orleans of
people he had talked with or worked with that, I guess, I would con-
sider, as a policeman, some extremists. But as a member of a group,
no; we haven't been able to get any rosters of organizations linking
his name 'with that particular group.
Mr. Lynch. Do you and the New Orleans Police Department main-
tain any kind of intelligence system to gather information about mili-
tant groups in the New Orleans area ?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. Yes, sir, we do.
Mr. Lynch. What kind of information do you develop? How do
you use it ?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. Well, information is developed through intelligence
groups, and there are various ways to gather intelligence on people
who are considered extremists or terrorists in our society. One method
is to infiltrate the groups, the other is, of course, to purchase informa-
tion from those who are in it. Another method is surveillance of the
people as a result of prior knowledge of them. We engage in all of these
methods.
105
Mr. Lynch. The reason I asked the question. Superintendent, is that
I am wondering if it would be helpful for chiefs of major city police
departments such as yours to receive rejjularly. on a national basis, in-
telli<;ence data similai- to the kind of data the Secret Service maintains
on people who may be dan^rerous to the life of the President. Would
tliere, in your judofmont, be value in receiving information on a coop-
eiative basis from other agencies for instance, that people with known
violent tendencies are on their way to your city? Do you get that kind
of information now from other police agencies ?
Mr. (tiakrusso. To some extent, but the information that we receive,
as far as I laiow, has largely been confined to organized crime. There
isn't the amount of information that should be sent to and received
from other cities dealing with terrorists and extremists. There is a
need for a national depository, a data collecting bank if you will, to
gather this information and disseminate it to the departments through-
out the country.
Mr. Lyxcii. In other woi-ds, your judgment would be that you
would want to have that kind of information. But if I understand you
correctly, even if you had it. it would not have given you anything on
]Mr. Essex and it would not in any way have been able to prevent this
particular incident ?
Mr. GiARRUsso. I don't believe it would have, because we dealt with
an individual here as opposed to two or more people. This was the
significant difference. On the otlier hand, if this particular individual
had traveled around enough prior to engaging in this incident, intel-
ligence may have been gatliored against him for the New^ Orleans
Police Department, or departments throughout the country, who may
have had to cope with h.im.
Actually there should be a psychological profile developed on these
people.
Mr. Lynch. Superintendent, I am sure you have been asked by
chiefs of police in various parts of the country about this incident,
and I wonder if you could tell us what advice, if any, you have given
to other departments based on your experience in the Howard Johnson
incident? Have you given advice to other departments as to how they
miffht better handle similar situations ?
Mr. GiARRUsso. I liave verbalized advice to other chiefs of police in
Louisiana, not to departments throughout the country. We are in the
process of putting something together for other police chiefs when
I meet with them in ]\Liy — the major city police chiefs meet in ]MaY —
some of the do's and don'ts of the situation. It has not been compiled
yet for the simple reason the investigation has not been completed.
There are many, many administrative do's and don't's that I intend to
set dov»-n and verbalize to chiefs who are interested, from other sections
of the country.
]\Ir. Lynch. Could you preview some of those for us ?
Mr. GiARRUsso. Yes. I think if I had to return to a similar situation
the first thing I would do is I would have a few secretaries there who
would take notes of evei'ything that was said and done. A historian,
if you will, that is absolutely essential for the following subsequent
investigation.
The next thing, I would not permit people to randomly report to
such an area. I would set up a staging area for the surrounding juris-
106
dictions. There is need for people from surrounding jurisdictions if
you are going to isolate an area.
I tliink it IS absolutely essential that communications be established
among the policemen who are there. This is an absolute essential, and
it was the one stumbling block with which I was faced when I arrived
on the scene.
I think there is a great deal of interest administratively by a chief
as to where he will set up a command post. Setting up a command post
is very important in my opinion ; where you are going to operate from,
with whom you will operate in that command post.
I would try to get more portable radios so that each man who is
participating will know what is going on, so there are miified re-
sponses to a command that is given.
There must be trained personnel, specially trained personnel, spe-
cially equipped personnel. We have since then trained people espe-
cially for this type of operation and they are equipped for this type
of operation. The training should not be limited to firepower only.
I think there is a great need to deal with the training that touches
the other end of the spectrum. For example, tliere should be men there
who are qualified to talk with someone and ask him to come out. We
did this, but we didn't do it as professionally as we should have or
could do right now, as a result of some of the training.
Mr. Lynch. Based on your reflections about the incident, and with
the understanding that you lost your deputy superintendent, Mr.
Sirgo, who was a close personal friend as well, is there any way in
your judgment that some of the fatalities that occurred could have
been prevented ?
Mr. GiARRusso. The civilians that were involved were defenseless
and unarmed. I don't believe anything could have been done for the
civilians, because these people were going about their normal every-
day chores of life by either walking or talking in a hotel and cer-
tainly not expecting someone to ruthlessly shoot them down — murder
them.
Those involved as police, who knows? In retrospect I can say I
should have done this and I should have done that, but I do not know
whether or not any of the action we have taken since then would have
prevented those men who were killed or wounded; there would not
have been as many men probably wounded or injured.
In addition to the wounded, we had about 11 men who were injured
as a result of smoke inhalation, for example. I think we need that
type of equipment and we have that type of equipment to cope. We
sent men in there, and lo and behold they should have worn gas
masks and oxygen masks to keep the men there. After stationmg
them on floors, we found they had to move because of the smoke, either
up or down. I think we are prepared for a repetition of a situation
which would involve both shootings and fires simultaneously.
I think that one other thing that this committee should know is
that we have developed what we believe to be, we call it for lack of a
better name, an emergency package which we ask the people in the
high-rise buildings in the city of New Orleans to have for us during
the carnival season at that time, not knowing whether or not there
would be a repetition of the incident.
It is very important to liave the plans to a high-rise building when
you enter there. One of the first things that I asked for when I entered
107
the motel w<as "Where are the plans," from the manag^er of the hotel,
and he didn't have them. Fortunately he had several people sit down
and draw one floor before me and wlien he guve it to me he said,
"Tliese are the plans, all of the floors are the same." This helped us
immensely.
You need the plans. This emergency package should contain the
plans of the building.
There should be keys in this emergency package that open all doors.
If at all possible, the elevators should be made available for the firemen
and police only.
In addition to that, we would like to have a photograph of the roof
of the building. This would enable us to take certain measures that
we were unable to take last time.
If this package were j)laced in most high rise buildings we believe
it would substantially contribute to a reduction in the number of people
who are killed and/or injured, and an effective police operation.
Mr. Lynch. Have you or other city officials recommended that this
be handled by enacting an ordinance or other appropriate law in your
jurisdiction?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. No; nothing has been done along those lines. The
only thing we have done up to now is make arrangements with the
peo]3le at city hall to have all plans for high rise buildings available to
us should we need them on a moment's notice, with present plans call-
ing for a motorcycleman to pick up the plans for that particular build-
ing and deliver them wherever they would be needed at that time.
We intend to ask for compliance by the people who own the high
rise buildings, rather tlian do it by ordinance. Ordinance is a new
tJiought. I hadn't thought of it.
Mr. Lynch. Have you, in fact, developed within your department
new written emergency plans for the handling of this and similar
kinds of incidents?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. Yes, sir ; we have.
Mr. Lynch. I wonder if you could make those available to the com-
mittee ? Could you send us a copy ?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. No ; we have, in terms of planning, a specially trained
group which would respond to this type of situation, if that is what
you mean. Do I have plans that are written? No, I don't other than I
will show you I have several pages, typewritten patres, of mnterial de-
scribing the acts to be taken by certain people. But it isn't formalized
to the extent that I would like to say here that I would offer this as a
recommendation for all people.
Mr, Lynch. I have no further questions, Mr, Chairman,
Chairman Pepper. Superintendent, I want to commend you on the
clarity and the directness of your testimony here today. It has been
veiT interesting and verv helpful.
Was Essex finally killed by gunfire from your ground officers or
from the gunship ?
Mr, GiARRUSSO, We are confident he was killed by the gunfire from
the helicopter. There were other people stationed in adjoining build-
ings overlooking the roof, and they did fire. Who fired first, T don't
know, I do believe, in retrospect, that it was the men who were in the
helicopter.
Chairman Pepper. TTliat was of particulnr interest to me because
several members of this committee wont u|) to Attica on Friday, the
108
week following that tragedy, and after talking there for 2 days to of-
ficials and inmates, and different ones who had a part in that episode,
were told a helicopter came OA'er the area, the walled-in area down
below — a courtyard in which the hostages were confined and rebel-
lious prisoners were concentrating — and dropped tear gas. Then the
plan was for the snipers to be strategically located around so they could
shoot those rebellious inmates who had knives at the throats of some
of the hostages, in an effort to save the hostages lief ore they were killed.
I was interested in your use of the armored helicopter in this inci-
dent and the value you derived from it.
Mr. GiARRusso. We needed the helicopter and. of course, the depart-
ment doesn't have one so we asked for an armored helicopter and the
Marine Corps responded with both a pilot and a helicopter — an
armored helicopter. But an armored helicopter consists of armor
around the engine of the helicopter and that is all.
The men in the helicopter are exposed to any shots that are fired.
Actually, Essex fired at the copter, and the shot passed near the head
of the Marine Corps colonel pilot, who incidentally is a A^ery talented
and brave man. He continually exposed himself to fire from that man.
But the armored helicopters aren't armored. Only the engines are
armored.
Chairman Pepper. I thought there was armor around the body of
the ship. I want to find out about that. I didn't think they would go
into the situation that they had if only the engine were armored.
They would be too vulnerable, it seems to me. to groundfire.
Anyway, if there were ships of armor tliat would protect t]Tt> ir,(Mi
in the ships who were firing, it would be of value, would it not?
Mr. GiARRusso. It was the vehicle that enabled us to finally quell
the disturbance at Howard Johnsons.
Chainnan Pepper. Thank you.
Mr. Brasco?
Mr. Brasco. ]Mr. Giarrusso, yesterday we heard from members of
the New York City Police Department who described a similar situa-
tion, where 4 people took over a sporting goods shop in Brooklyn
and held some 12 hostages. Fortunately, that worked out better and
they didn't have the same tragedy, but I appreciate that in New York
they had hostage training because of a prior experience with hostages
being held during the course of a commission of a bank holdup.
I appreciate that in all of these situations you have to look for the
breaks and play it by ear and with established guidelines wait to take
advantage of the opportunities as they develop.
But my specific question is this, with respect to this incident: It
seemed to me that one of the differences that you were working with
in New Orleans that they didn't have in New York is that whatever
motivated Essex apparently brought him to the brink of what I, as
a layman, might characterize as an insane kind of action. Apparently,
he liad no intention of escape. He had no concern for his own safety
or whether he would live or die.
The situation in New Yoi-k was different hi that the police, because
they were asked for a doctor to take care of one wounded accomplice,
knew the gunmen were concerned about their lives, thus, they had
something to build on.
With that in mind, it would seem to me at some point it might have
been evident to somebody in your group that you might be dealing
with an insane man. Did that possibility come up at all ?
109
Mr. GiARRi'sso. Til at possibility exists. Tliore are levels and degrees
of sanity, and I don't know how insane he was, if he were at all insane.
Some of his acts seemed to be perfectly rational as far as I am con-
cerned, particnlarly when you look at the casualty toll.
However, we tra<?ed him to a room that he occupied prior to going
on this affair, and imprinted along the walls were all sorts of revolu-
tionary slogans. There was a groat deal of revolutionary and extremist
material in the room. So we did have a psychiatrist, a psj^chologist,
and a sociologist go into the room and they are compiling a report
based on what they have seen in the room and whatever information
we can give to them about it.
This group is on their own; there is no money involved. We ron-
tacted Tulane University. These people are employees of Tulane Uni-
versity, with one exception, and he is a man in government. It should
prove interesting. I laiow that initially when they went to the room,
which was shortly after the incident, they returned to the office and
asked for information on him, which I refused to give because I did
not want to color any of the scientific or objective intelligence gathered
by them.
They agreed that they would form a skeleton with what thev saw
there and then try to put meat on the bones of that skeleton with the
information that we obtained subsequent to that.
]Mr. Brasco. That is not my question. The reason I really asked the
question, Mr. Giarrusso, is apparent. I don't know whether or not
you will even prove or disprove this man's sanity or lack thereof, but
it just seems to me his actions, as viewed by a layman, could be charac-
terized as insane.
I asked from the point of view, with that in mind, would you again
take the position of pressing an individual under those circumstances.
In other words, returning his fire, having people in and around the
building? Because it was apparent, from reading the testimony and
listening to you that as he was pressed he ran from floor to floor shoot-
ing anvbody and anything that was moving.
"With that basic background, were any decisions made as to how
these cases might be handled in the future? "Would you again press
the individual or just secure the area ai^id play a waiting game?
Mr. Giarrusso. Mr. Brasco, we did. We did attempt to talk with liim
once; he was isolated on the roof. A man went up with a bullhorn
and asked him to come down and told him, he would be taken ])risoner,
etcetera. This was completely ignored by him. or unheard by hin.. But
we have reason to believe that he did hear, because we did send a man
up there with an electric horn to talk with him.
But not to evade the rest of your question. If there is a madman or
a rational person running through a liotel killing people. I think the
only responsible response that a police official can make is to neutralize
him in any way that is possible. And if it means shooting him, then
he gets shot. Why should we expose innocent civilians to continued
fire by someone, be he a madman or a genius? The public is entitled to
greater protection.
Mr. Brasco. I don't question that.
Chairman Pepper. !May T interni])t ? I think j^ierhaps I was in error.
]Maybe you contemplated that all of these gentlemen Avould make their
own contribution and we would have the whole picture before us
110
before we began to inquire. Would the superintendent like to present
his associates to give aspects of this matter or are they here for
questions ?
Mr. Lynch. I believe that Chief Giarrusso would like to have the
rest of the gentlemen who are at the table with him, describe certain
anticrime programs implemented by his department.
Chairman Pepper. You go right ahead and do that.
Mr. Brasco. I will finish this as quickly as possible.
The reason I ask is not to fix blame or be critical. I understand ex-
actly what your position was. But in your testimony you say Essex
did confront some people in the hotel, and unless I misunderstood the
testimony, asked them to let him to certain floors. And those people
were not shot. I don't know his motivation or reasoning, but it seems
to me the shooting began when apparently he first began to feel the
pressure of people closing in on him.
I appreciate it is a difficult thing to gage and this was your first
such incident. However, I am asking you to be the ]Monday morning
quarterback and estimate whether or not pressure on the num was
helpful under the conditions that developed ?
That was the only reason I asked the question.
Chairman Pepper. I learn now from our deputy chief counsel that
the other gentlemen accompanj'ing the superintendent will tell about
different programs they have. They will not talk primarily about this
episode.
Mr. Giarrusso. While it is true, although the men were there, all of
the men seated at the table were there, they are here because of different
programs we consider innovative programs in response to street crimes
that we have employed.
Chairman Pepper. But they are not going to talk primarily about
this episode ?
Mr. Giarrusso. No, sir.
Chairman Pepper. Very well. Let's question about this episode and
then go back to these gentlemen.
Mr. Wiggins?
Mr. Wiggins. Mr. Superintendent, would you please describe the
red, green, and black flag which was found on the 18th floor?
Mr. Giarrusso. It is a flag that is multicolored — red, green, and
black — and the areas occupied by the red, green, and black are equal
in space that they occupy. There have been various names attached
to it, but I don't care to attach any name to the flag for the simple
reason I don't know this man is in any way connected with that group.
Now, there are revolutionary groups and extremist groups to whom
this flag symbolizes something. If I described the flag, the only thing
I can do is tell you it is a multicolored flag.
Mr. Wiggins. All right. What is the si^iificance of the flag?
Mr. Giarrusso. I don't know what the significance was in terms of
his carrying the flag.
Mr. Wiggins. No; the significance of the flag.
Mr. Giarrusso. I have talked and I have been confronted with that
flag in New Orleans in terms of some, what I consider, militant stu-
dents, insisting that the flag be hoisted and flown at a particular school.
It is called by some a "black revolutionary flag."
Mr. Wiggins. Was the flag commercially manufactured or hand-
made ?
Ill
Mr. Gtarrusso. I don't know. I really don't know. I would say it
was commercially mannfactiired.
Mr. Wiggins. Where did Mr. Essex get it?
Mr. GiARKT'sso. I don't know that,
Mr. Wiggins. Have you investigated that?
Mr. GiARRusso. No, sir.
Mr. Wiggins. I suggest you might inquire into the source of the flag.
You indicated tliat there were certain revolutionary materials in his
apartment. "\^niere did he get those revolutionary materials?
Mr. GiARRusso. This, I don't know. It is similar to the underground
material with which most big cities are faced. It is there and one
doesn't know where it comes from.
Mr. Wiggins. Have you investigated the source of the material you
found in his apartment?
Mr. GiARRusso. Yes, sir. That has been done. I believe Officer Kast-
ner can tell you what he did along those lines, as well as the man who
was primarily concerned with that, the commander of the intelligence
division, who is not here. But source material was checked by the
intelligence division.
Mr. Wiggins. Mr. Kastner, can you answer the question of where
Mr. Essex obtained the material ?
Mr. Kastner. There were various publications of revolutionary
groups, or so-called revolutionary groups, which were traced to having
been purchased in New Orleans, readily available on street corners by
persons who advocate these publications, and sell them right on the
street corners. We found five inside his apartment which are easily
purchased on the streets in New^ Orleans.
]\Ir. Wiggins. That answers my question. Back to you, Mr. Super-
intendent. ^Tiat kind of rifle was Mr. Essex carrying?
Mr. GiARRusso. A .44 caliber rifle. He had magnum ammunition,
which I understand is a little more potent than the ammunition nor-
mally used.
Mr. Wiggins. When you describe the .44 magnum, you are referring
to his rifle and not a .44 magnum pistol ?
Mr. GiARRusso. That is right.
Mr. Wiggins. He carried one weapon, a rifle ?
Mr. GiARRusso. He carried but one weapon on January 7. On New
Year's Eve night, he did leave a .38 caliber pistol in the vacant lot that
adjoined police headquarters.
Mr. Wiggins. Did the rifle have semiautomatic or automatic fire
capability?
Mr. GiARRusso. I think someone more qualified can tell you.
Mr. ICastner. It is a Ruhr rifle, .44 caliber, semiautomatic, holds
one round in the chamber and four rounds in the magazine.
Mr. Wiggins. In other words, you can fire simply upon squeezing
the trigger repeatedly ?
Mr. Kastner. Right : yes, sir.
Mr. Wiggins. "VAIiere did he get the rifle?
Mr. ICastner. Purchased from a store in Emporia ; A Montgomery
Ward Department Store in Emporia, Kans.
Mr. Wiggins. It was lawfully purchased.
Mr. Kastner. Yes, sir.
112
Mr. Wiggins. Did your officers wear either bulletproof vests, or
flak jackets of any sort during this ej^isode ?
Mr. GiARRusso. Some of them did. Those who had the vests that we
had avaihxble for them did wear them. We didn't have enough vests to
go around.
Mr. Wiggins. Are they part of your police inventory?
Mr. GiARRusso. Part of them were our inventory and most came
from the military.
Mr. Wiggins. Referring to the AR-15 fired from the helicopter: Is
that weapon a part of your inventory ?
Mr. GiARRusso. Part of our inventory.
Mr. Wiggins. You did not mention in vour testimony that you used
gas or attempted to use gas. Did you, and if not, why not ?
Mr. GiARRusso. We did attempt to use gas. However, he was on
the roof of a building which was 19 or 20 stories high. Our first at-
tempt was with gas and the wind blew the gas away. It was vei-y
ineffective.
Mr. Wiggins. Do you have multiple capabilities in terms of your
weaponry to deal with persons in a confined location ? For example,
do you have something like a W.P. grenade or similar type of weapon ?
Mr. GiARRiTsso. Yes ; we do have grenades and we do have multiple
caj^ability. On the other hand, budgetary limitations prevent us from
getting the weapons that we would need. It would seem to me, really,
to be a waste of taxpayers' dollars because the military and the other
organizations in and around there work rather closely with the police
and we can get what they have if we need it.
Mr. VriGGiNS. How may AR-15"s do you have in your inventory?
Mr. GiARRusso. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Wiggins. The Marine helicopter that was furnished, was that
furnished pursuant to a prior plan ?
Mr. GiARRusso. No, sir; it wasn't.
]Mr. Wiggins. How long did it take you to get a response to your
request?
Mr. GiARRusso. I imagine a few hours.
Mr. Wiggins. Was the Marine helicopter working on a common
radio net with the police ?
Mr. GiARRTJSso. No, sir. We put two of our radios in the helicopter.
Two, in the event one failed.
Mr. Wiggins. Did your hand-carried radios operate from the in-
terior of the building? Were you able to receive and send from the
inside of the concrete building?
Mr. GiARRusso. Fortunately, we are in a transitional phase in that
we are getting new equipment, radio equipment, communications equip-
ment, and the equipment we had there had just been up a short period
of time and the receiver was on an adjoinincr building. It was quite
near and it enabled us to communicate readilv in the building with
tlie iTmited number of portable radios that we had.
Mr. Wiggins. Now. do you have a plan with the military units in
your vicinity to obtain such equipment as you may need from them ?
Mr. GiARRrsso. No, sir; but I have talked with the people who are
in charge of those bases, and they have indicated to me, other than
written guarantees, that we would'get what we needed if it was within
their power to grant to us whateverwe needed.
113
Mr. WiOGixs. Do you liave any type of armored personnel carriers
to get police into the building, for example, if the streets were under
lire?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. Yes. sir. AVe have an armored persoimel carrier which
we use extensively out there for the purpose of getting people under
cover, and various other chores, other than getting people into the
building.
Mr. WiCxGiNS. Is that part of your inventory ?
]Mr, GiARRUsso. Yes, sir ; it is.
]VIr. WiGGixs. I am going to ask you a difficult question, but it is
one that Congress may have to cope with. What is an extremist about
whom intelligence should be gathered and disseminated, as you indi-
cated would be helpful in your testimony?
Mr. GiARRUsso. From the top of my head, I would say an extremist is
a person who advocates overthrowing our form of government by
force, and one who just doesn't care how many innocent people he
Avould kill, symbolically, along the way.
Mr. WiGGixs. Can you name any groups that fall into that category ?
]\fr. GiARRFsso. Not without intelligence records available. And I
would hate to compromise what I consider security information at a
public hearing.
Mr. Wiggins. I wouldn't want you to. Many of the so-called extrem-
ists groups are motivated by political considerations. There has been
much discussion here in Washington about the desirability of collecting
intelligence data on politically motivated persons, however outrageous
their beliefs may be. You would draw the line on those groups which
would tend to overthrow our Government by force or other unlawful
means. Is that your suggestion ?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. At present, yes; because within the constitutional
framework within which we live it is difficult to even move against
these people. Unfortunately, we, the police, have to respond after they
have engaged in some bloodletting, rather than prior thereto so that
we could have prevented it.
I, as a policeman, believe there are waj'^s we can thwart some of
those people, and I don't mind telling you I am a firm believer of
infiltrating these groups; and we have successfully infiltrated them
at home. To do other than that means to live in a city of wall-to-wall
police and we can't afford that, and I don't believe our society is ready
for this type of operation.
Some people who are supersensitive about this say it shouldn't be
done, that we are invading the rights of privacy of these people, which
])laces police and society in the position of only responding to those
violent acts in which they engage. We can't do those things that are
necessary to prevent thorn from injuring people and actually de-
stroying our society.
Mr. Wiggins. Do your police officers have available, as part of your
inventory, steel helmets ?
Afr. GiARRTTsso. Yes, sir; we have some available. You are talking
about the tin hats ?
Mr. WiGGixs. Military type.
Mr. GiARRusso. Yes, we do have some of those, of World War II
vintage; and we do have the regular helmets that are worn by them.
My. Wiggins. Crash helmets ?
114
Mr. GiAKRUsso. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wiggins. Can you give us any suggestions as to any equipment
you felt you should have had in your inventory but did not have^
Mr. GiARRUSso. Yes, sir. Immediately after the Howard Johnson
affair, we purchased "second chance" vests. These vests will stop most
bullets. It is actually a cloth material that the men can wear under
their jackets. If equipped with certain plates placed in the jacket they
will stop very high-powered rifles. Certainly, they would have stopped
the rifle the men faced out there that day.
Mr. Wiggins. I don't think the manufacturer would like to have
this jacket tested with a .44 magnum rifle, but that is beside the point.
Mr. GiARRUSSo. In addition to the morale building it does for the
men.
Mr. Wiggins. Thank you.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Rangel.
Mr. Rangel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
From your testimony, Mr. Superintendent, I gather the intelligence
of Essex can only allow you to believe that you were dealing with a
very emotionally disturbed individual ?
Mr. Giarrusso. I don't Imow the degree of emotional disturbance ;
I don't believe I am qualified to say that, but I would say in a very
general way I would consider it abnormal behavior as opposed to
that which we normally engage in during the course of a day.
Mr. Rangel. I really meant, from a layman's point of view, some-
one doing these types of acts certainly would be considered to be
disturbed.
Mr. Giarrusso. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rangel. Well, to put it another way : Your testimony indicates
that there is no evidence of him being a part of some larger conspiracy.
Mr. GiARRTJSSO. We have not been able to develop any hard facts
which would indicate that. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Rangel. As a matter of fact, you might say that with Lee
Oswald certainly there was more intelligence on him than you were
able to find on Essex, in terms of attempting to set up some data banks
for these types of people.
Mr. Giarrusso. We didn't have the machinery the Federal Govern-
ment put into motion to investigate Lee Oswald.
Mr. Rangel. But you do have machinery now to investigate who
Essex was and, in reading your testimony, there was no evidence that
this would be the type of person where intelligence would have been
able to assist you in avoiding this tragedy ?
Mr. Giarrusso. Only because it was an individual, Mr. Rangel. If
it had been a group, it may have been different.
Mr. Rangel. Any testimony in connection with any revolutionary
groups or any intelligence data banks certainly would not be relative
to this case involving Essex ?
Mr. Giarrusso. I would not make that unqualified statement ; no, sir.
Mr. Rangel. But you have not been able to find any evidence to con-
nect him with any group ?
Mr. Giarrusso. We have not developed what I would consider hard
evidentiary facts which would be admissible in a court of law as
evidence.
Mr, Rangel. This flag Congressman Wiggins made inquiry about,
have you seen this flag before in the city of New Orleans ?
115
Mr. GiARRUSSo. I have seen similar flags ; yes, sir.
Mr. Rangel. Have you seen decals on automobiles being driven by
black people?
Mr. GiARRUsso. I haven't; but there may be some.
Mr. Kangel. But tliere is no reason to associate this red, green, and
black flag with any organized revolutionary group ?
Mr. GiARRusso. NoTsir. Well now, you mean in relation to the flag
Essex liad?
Mr. Rangel. No, in connection with the flag that was found some-
where near the people allegedly killed by Essex. You never found
Essex with a flag, did you ?
Mr. GiARRUSSo. No. But one of the people in the hotel, when he
entei-ed the hotel, saw this flag, or what appeared to be this flag, at-
tached to the end of the barrel of the rifle.
Mr. Rangel. My question is — and any of your colleagues can an-
swer— have you ever seen this type of flag or replica of the flag being
used or in the possession of responsible citizens ?
Mr. GiARRusso. I would say "Yes.'' It depends upon the group that
you are talking about. Certainly, to many responsible citizens in our
community, this flag symbolizes something for them.
Mr. Brasco. Would you gentleman yield at that point ?
Mr. Raxgel. I am happy to.
Mr. Brasco. We have been talking about this flag. Is this the red,
black, and green flag that we ai-e talking about ?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brasco. I don't know that I understand exactly what it is, but I
always thought it was one's identihcation with a mother country. I
thought it had something to do with that.
Mr. GiARRusso. It does.
Mr. Brasco. Pretty much like flying an Italian flag in New York.
That is why Congressman Rangel is asking about it. Many people
have these flags on their cars. I have seen them in red, white, and green,
which is the Italian flag, and then the American flag, and what I call
the African flag and the American flag. So it has no significance as far
as I can see in New York.
Thank you.
Mr. Rangel. Mr. Superintendent, this committee certainly is in no
position to be critical of anything that has been done by the New
Orleans Police Department. We are just hoping that out of this we
might be able to assist others in avoiding similar-type tragedies.
In connection with the unauthorized marksmen, were you able to
ascertain who they were?
Mr. Gl\rrusso. No. At the time we were much too bus}^ to seek their
identity. I know I talked with one personally, and I was too busy to
bother about his name or identification. He said, ''Well, I am here." I
wondered how he got into the hotel, to tell you the truth.
Mr. Rangel. There was a point where you were concerned about the
safety of Sergeant Woodfork. I am assuming you were not concerned
about his brother officers shooting him because of his beard?
Mr. Gl\rrusso. This possibility exists for the simple reason that at
that time we had manned locations surrounding the building and I
didn't want him to go out and expose himself. You know, in this cool,
calm atmosphere, I can't recreate the tension the men were under at
that particular time, particularly when so many had fallen.
116
That possibility is quite possible that because he had a j2:oatee, and!
there had been word broadcast one of them had a goatee. I didn't want
him injured.
Mr. Rangel. How could you reach the conclusion regarding the
number of people actually wounded and killed by Essex, in view of
the fact there were so many unauthorized firearms at the scene?
Mr. GiAKRUsso. There were nine people killed and nine people
wounded by his rifle, as a result of (1) Us establishing this through
ballistics and of the shell cases that had been extracted, the extractor
marks on the cases.
Now, there were six other policemen who were injured that I at-
tributed to ricochet shots from elsewhere and we did not in any way
connect this with the gim and/or the sniper that was at the hotel. Those
that are there are the ones we can positively connect with the gun.
Mr. Rangel. By ballistics ?
Mr. GiARRusso." Ballistics or by the extractor marks on the shell
casings.
Mr. Rangel. But it can be attributed to the gun found on the roof
top of Howard Johnson's ?
Mr. GiARRusso. Yes. sir.
Mr. Rangel. And is this information confidential, the report of
being able to attach the wounded that are charged to Essex and those
that were slain. Is that information considered confidential by your
department ?
Mr. GiARRusso. No. sir; not before this group. I am sure I didn't
make myself clear. Those people who were actually wounded by, let's
say by, police bullets were not counted in the toll of people who were
wounded by Essex. It is separate, apart, and distinct from that.
Mr. Rangel. I understand that. But we have had a tragic exper-
ience in New York State where a lot of deaths in Attica Avere attributed
to some prisoners and, in fact, after ballistic investigation, all of the
deaths of gunshot were then attributed to law enforcement. And as
you describe so many people that you don't know, voluntarily coming
there to just shoot and help out, phis so many law enforcement people
with a variety of weapons, I assume, that unless you have ballistic
data, I don't see how you are able to separate those that were shot by
citizens, foreign law enforcement offcers, or perhaps, tragically, your
own law enforcement personnel.
It just seems to us who saw it over television to be a rather con-
fused situation, and we certainly don't know what should have been
done and perhaps everything that should have been done was done.
But I just don't see how we can be so accurate in determining who
killed whom, or who shot whom, when everybody was shooting.
Mr. GiARRusso. I will be happy to sit down with you when you hn ve
a great deal of time and go into detail with you about each killing,
each wounding, and show you how those that we enumerated here,
nine and nine, are connected with the rifle that was found by the body
of INIark Essex.
Mr. RAxnrx. If it is not confidential, I would appreciate if you conld
send the ballistic infoi-mation to the committee, so that we would know
what the factual situation is.
jNIr. Gl\rrusso. All right. I am not certain I understand exactly
what you want.
117
Mr. Raxgel. Your report indicates tliot yon nre not even certain that
tliere was one or more people on tliat ]-oof involved with Essex; that
you don't have information to prove conclusively that he was alone.
Mr. GiARKi^sso. Yes. sir.
jNIr. Rangel. So I don't know how it is done from a law enforce-
ment point of view, but I assume, if somebody is shot or killed you do
try to determine the firearm which fired the fatal bullet,
Mr. Glvrrusso. Yes, sir.
]\Ir. Raxgel. And I assume from your testimonj^ that you have been
successful in doing just that.
INIr. Glvrrusso. Well, let's take the couple that were killed on the
IStli floor, and I believe they were killed first. Dr. and Mrs. Stegall. I
believe we have ballistics from Dr. Stegall which show he was killed
by the rifle that was carried by Essex. Concerning the wife, the bullet
went through her brain and out her eye.
We were unable to find that bullet because of debris, et cetera, there.
I think it is fair to deduce that he killed both Dr. and IMrs. Stegall
because there were otlier witnesses on the floor who said that they
heard the woman shout. "Please don't kill my husband."' There was
another witness who saw the husband actually engaged in a struggle
with him.
There was no one else up there that we knew of. '\^nien the police
did arrive on the 18th floor, this woman was lying on her husband.
Now, there is no other way we can connect her death v.ith the rifle,
other than the facts surrounding it. Whether or not he could have been
charged in court and the evidence would have been adjnissible under
the rigid evidentiai-y rules of criminal evidence. I don't know, but I
think it is a fair deduction that he killed both of them, while we had
ballistics from one only.
Mr. Rangel. Based on what you have testified, I am certain that no
one in or out of law enforcement would disagree with you therp. It
just bothers me when some parts of the testimony describe an assaihiJit
as having a beard, and it seems so easy to attiibute, since only one body
of a perpetrator was found, all of the deaths to that person and that
gun, with the exception of ballistic evidence which, of course, may not
have been made available.
Mr. GiARRUsso. Do I understand you correctly, Mr. Rangel, that you
don't understand how we can prove or believe that there is only one
person ? Is tliat what you are saying, sir ?
Mr. Raxgel. Mr. Superintendent, I am not trying to try this case
ex post facto. It just seems to me that you are attributing all of the
wounded and all of the slaying, with the exception of six police officers,
to a particular weapon that was found next to the body of Essex.
Mr. Gl\rrusso. Essentially ; yes. sir.
^Ir. Rax^^gel. So we can just discount anybody else shooting but
Essex ?
Mr. Glvrrusso. I think we can discount the shooting of the nine
killed and tlie nine injured. I think we can discount it if we say anyone
(vse did it. We can connect Essex with those nine deaths and with the
nine injured, ballistically.
^Lv. Raxgel. So we haven't completely disregarded the testimony of
(liat individual that described someone with a gun having a beard?
118
Mr. GiARRUsso. No, sir. Mr. Beamish, the man who was shot, did
identify him as having had a beard. On the other hand, there were
witnesses on that floor who gave an accurate description, other than
the one tliat was given by the victim of the shooting, and none de-
scribed the perpetrator as having a beard at that particular time.
Now, if you read through this, the back part of the report, I will tell
you I sincerely believe that Mr. Beamish, the victim, was honest and
he really believed that man had a goatee. If you want to attribute it to
hallucination or what have you, 1 really don't know. We did not re-
cover the pellet that injured ]SIr. Beamish.
^ye did not find any other shells, A-i magnum shells, on the patio
where Beamish was shot.
Mr. Kangel. This weapon Essex purchased, to your knowledge were
any other people carrying a similar type weapon in the area during
this tragic event?
Mr. GiARRusso. It is quite possible. It is quite possible because there
were nmltiple-type weapons there. I am sure there was a .44 caliber
rifle.
Mr. Rangel. But your investigation proved conclusively that the
number of people that were killed, nine killed and nine shot, it is attrib-
uted to the Essex weapon as opj)osed to other similar-type weapons ?
Mr. GiARRUsso. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rangel. This news agency that contributed to the chaos, have
you been able to identify what radio station that was ?
Mr. GiARRUsso. We narrowed it to a radio station and Officer Kast-
ner told me they denied doing it.
]Slr. Eangel. In the course of the investigation, were you able to
determine whether or not they were telling the truth ?
Mr. GiARRusso. We don't believe they were telling the truth because
we had witnesses who said they heard it on the radio and went there
in response to a radio plea for marksmen with scopes.
Mr. Rangel. You don't believe this type of broadcast would be crim-
inal in nature ?
Mr. GiARRusso. I don't know whether it would be criminal in nattire,
or whether we had an overly zealous radio announcer. I do know in the
future we would work more closely with the media so there wouldn't
be a repetition of this.
Mr. Rangel. But many of the reports issued by this station in con-
nection with multiple snipers, certainly that information was re-
leased by the police department ; was it not ?
Mr. GiARRusso. About multiple snipers? Yes, I assumed — I told
the men we would assume there was more than one person.
Mr. Rangel. Would that not be included among inaccurate report-
ing, as relates to more than one sniper ?
Mr. GiARRusso. That assumption was made long after these people
arrived with the rifles, though. It is one I publicly announced over
our radio systems, that we would assume there was more than one.
This was subsequent to the annoimcement over the radio. I don't know
why it was done. I am not excited about it. It is over with and it
didn't cause anyone to get injured. It did cause some concern for the
safety of the people who did arrive, and those that we had to escort
out of there. But that was the limit of it.
119
Mr. Rangel. Well, an adventure like this, isn't it just luck that
these people, experienced or inexperienced, did not kill or wound some-
body, since you had no way of identifying who they were?
Mr. GiARRUsso. You are correct, sir. We can speculate anything we
want, but I don't know.
Mr. Raxgel. But if another event were to occur and other radio sta-
tions would say "police officers are in trouble and we need marks-
men," it appears if it was in New York City or any other city that
this indeed would be a very dangerous thing to do, especially when the
law-enforcement officers could not identify who they were in view of
the fact many local police ofiicers were responding to a legitimate call
from your department.
Mr. GiARRUsso. I concur with you, sir.
Mr. Rangel. In conclusion, Mr. Superintendent, your testimony
as relates to a data bank, or infiltration of revolutionary groups, or
compiling data on individuals to make it available to law enforce-
ment's agencies, all of these worthwhile things, if you support that
idea, certainly do not relate to some one like Essex. Is that true?
Mr. GiARRUsso. It would apply to Essex were Essex working in
concert with one or more people. I think we should tackle the problem
of an individual doing the things that that man did. I think to this ex-
tent, we can parallel it with what has been done with the airlines. They
have developed psychological profiles of the people who do engage
in hijacking. Since this is true, I think that w^e can do the same thing,
which would enable us to predetermine some of the people who are
going to engage in isolated cases, individualized cases, involving mass
murders.
Mr. Rangel. I couldn't agree with you more, but there has been
absolutely no evidence, based on your subsequent examination of the
life and trials and the tribulations of Essex, that would allow you as
a law-enforcement officer to believe any type of file on him would have
been of any assistance to you ?
Mr. GiARRusso. As I said earlier — that isn't true, because now it isn't
accurate.
Mr. Rangel. Let me word it another way, Mr. Superintendent. If
you knew earlier everything that you know about Essex now, could
your police force have done anything to have prevented this tragedy ?
Mr. Giarrusso. I don't know about the one that occurred New
Year's Eve, but we may have been able to take some preventive meas-
ures which did affect the one that occurred on January 7 if we had
the information we had reference to. We may have.
Mr. Brasco. Would my colleague yield ?
Mr. Rangel. I yield.
Mr. Brasco. Not to second guess you, but if you had seen, say, his
room
Mr. Giarrusso. That is what I had in the back of my mind.
Mr. Brasco. I think that is what you are talking about. If you
had seen his room prior to this incident you might have had oppor-
tunity and reason to monitor his activities in your city.
Mr. Giarrusso. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wiggins. Would you yield to me ?
Mr. Brasco. Certainly.
iiH-MiHn 7S nt 1-
1120
Mr. Wiggins. What would you have done ?
Mr. GiARRUSso. I think, initially, I would have set up some surveil-
lances around his building to watch the man more closely.
Mr. Wiggins. Are you telling me that if you come into possession of
information that a given individual likes revolutionary slogans, likes
to read revolutionary literature, you would maintain that person under
surveillance ?
Mr. GiARRUSso. No, I don't believe that we could do that; no, sir.
We need better evidence than that.
Mr. Brasco. Would the gentleman yield ?
Mr. Wiggins. Yes.
Mr. Brasco. I think, Mr. Wiggins was talking about a national
situation. I don't know that we need any national authority for local
police authorities like yourself to investigate reasonably and would
indeed be unhappy as a citizen if I thought the police chief in my
community had available information that might have been disclosed
by viewing this man's room and that he didn't do something about it.
At least to make an effort to find out who the guy is and what he is all
about.
Mr. WiGOiNS. Is that what you would intend to do ?
Mr. Giarrusso. No. If we deal with it hypothetically, Mr. Wiggins,
I think I will give a general answer to the hypothetical you pose. If we
talk about this case in retrospect
Mr. Wiggins. I don't want to talk about this case. Hypothetically,
we are talking about before the fact; we are talking simply about
information in your possession which might call you to be suspicious
of an individual. I am asking you what your department would do
about it.
Mr. Giarrusso. I am not going to say what the department would
do. It w^ould have to do what I would say. I am trying to tell you I
am going to answer what I would do about it. I think that data should
be gathered which then should be evaluated. Evaluated, and then cer-
tain movements made.
If I may deal with an actual situation by way of example, there is a
person at home who — for 6 or 8 months — said that he was going to kill
several policemen, since the Howard Johnson incident. This person
has filed notice. We have had phone calls. He has told other people that
he intends to do it. I can tell you what I have ordered done since learn-
ing that and, incidentally, he is a psychiatric patient.
I can't have someone follow him around every day. We have notified
the policeman he intends to kill, "You have got to be careful."
In addition to that, each time we received a threat, I have it docu-
mented, and then his mother is notified and his attorney is notified
that this threat was received this date, and the sources of the threat.
And he is the source of the threat.
I can't follow him and I don't know what else we can do, other than
put the policeman on notice.
Mr. Wiggins. If we had a system of disseminating intelligence in-
formation to you about suspected types of individuals, I doubt it would
be efficacious in preventing incidents. It would perhaps be helpful in
investigation after the incident, if you did not apprehend the suspect
at that time. You would have a list of potential suspects for further
investigation. It is of value to the police, I understand that. But I
121
think it is holding up a false promise if you think it is going to stop
some psychotic from sliooting police officers.
Mr. GiARRusso. I concur with that. In other words, let me tell you
liow a cop would intuitively respond to that situation. If we take a?
and he has propensities along the lines we described, and I had that
information, and it is the intervening acts which enable a cop to
respond in that, if someone had been seen with a rifle fitting this
description it certainly would put us on notice that certain action
should be put into effect to do whatever is possible, either neutralize
him or thwart him in his attempt to kill or maim anyone.
It is what happens in between. I don't believe anyone can predict
with any degree of accuracy he would do A, B, C, and D. I couldn't;
I am not talking for other people. I don't believe I can, and I have
been a policeman long enough to know there are certain things you do.
You respond. Some of these are intuitive responses ; some are responses
after making an evaluation of the situation as you see it.
I don't believe anyone would more closely guard the rights of the
individuals in our society and do those things that are constitutionally
protected. I would fight for those rights. I do recognize there are ter-
rorist groups in our society and I don't believe we should stand by and
wring our hands and say, "What are we going to do?"
I think certain positive steps should be taken. If they are wrong, we
find out if they are wrong and change them, but we should not just
sit there.
Mr. Wiggins. Under our system it is going to be very difficult to
do anything about those terrorist groups until they, in fact, commit
an act of terror. Simply because they have a propensity or likelihood
to do so, we are, under our system, almost powerless to deal with them.
Mr. Brasco. Mr. Chairman, a quorum call.
Chairman Pepper. We will take a brief recess while we answer the
quorum call and then we will return.
Do you consider now it would have been desirable to call the Na-
tional Guard or the military guard to come to the aid of this?
Mr. GiARRt sso. No, sir. I don't believe that this was a situation
which required the National Guard or the military, other than to give
us hardware that was needed and/or to complement some of the
acts we were taking as a result of our inability to cope with that
situation.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you. Superintendent. We will be back
in just a few minutes.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order.
Mr. Lynch. Detective Kastner indicated to me he had some photo-
graphs that would be of interest to the committee.
I wonder if you would bring the photographs up to the bench.
Those photographs, Mr. Chairman, are principally photographs
of Mr. Essex's room, which the police department discovered after
the incident. They are germane in that they respond principally to
questions asked by Mr. Wiggins earlier this morning.
[See material received for the record at the end of Mr. Giarrusso's
testimony.]
122
Mr. Lynch. Chief, you indicated that the local television station
performed a certain service, as it were, in quelling some of the rumors
which cropped up during the course of this incident. I wonder if you
could elaborate on that, please.
Mr. GiARRUSSO. I think the media made a positive contribution to
the incident, in that, for one thing, they did keep the traffic out of the
area, both pedestrian as well as automobile. In addition to that, they
did serve to neutralize rumors that were running rampant at the time,
and, third, they did keep the public informed ; and the public has the
right to know what is going on when something like this occurs.
They were currently abreast of the affairs. I know they made quite
a contribution, although at the time I did not know the magnitude
of the coverage by the media.
Mr. Lynch. There is a representative from WWL-TV of New
Orleans here today, Mr. Dave Walker. Did you work with him during
the course of this incident. Superintendent?
Mr. GiARRusso. No, sir. On the contrary, I would say Mr. Dave
Walker and I worked at opposite ends of the pole for the simple reason
that subsequent to the affair, Mr. Walkei- made several reports, which
I believe he received from the policemen, and I thought it was hinder-
ing the investigation at that time.
But in deference to him, I think he is a very good reporter and he
did the job that he had to do, as objectively as he is capable of doing it.
I don't have any misgivings about Mr. Walker's coverage. But we
didn't work together; no, sir.
Mr. Lynch. And Mr. Walker did, in fact, conduct — or his station
conducted — an independent investigation of this incident; is that
correct ?
Mr. GiARRusso. Yes, sir. It is my understanding that he did.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be useful at this time
if we called Mr. Walker of WWL-TV to very briefly describe what
his station did during this incident.
Mr. Walker, I wonder if you could describe your activities sur-
rounding the incident and also would you advise the committee as to
the communication which your station received from Mark Essex.
Statement of William D. Walker
Mr. Walker. The coverage began by myself sometime between
11 :30 and 12 noon on Sunday, the 7th. It extended to a period of about
10 o'clock as far as live coverage. This is a position where we had
television cameras located directly across and to the front of the
Howard Johnson's in the Warwick Hotel. And another camera sta-
tioned above the Howard Johnson's on the back of the New Orleans
Building.
Both cameras were live for some 14 hours, one of the cameras in
the Warwick Hotel, which provided live coverage of the incident
itself, from about 2 o'clock in the afternoon on Sunday, the 7th.
Subsequent to the coverage itself and provided with certain in-
formation I did conduct what I hope was an independent investigation
of the incident, particularly as it concerned the number of people
involved, because it was suspected, I think by all of us, during the
period of the confrontation in Howard Johnson's that there was more
than one individual involved.
123
I believe there is suiRcient information available at this point to
indicate otherwise; that there was only one man who actually fired
shots from Howard Johnson's.
Mr. Lynch. I believe you told me, Mr. Walker, that you had re-
ceived, or your television station had received, a letter or a' written
communication of some form from Mark Essex. Would you describe
that?
Mr. Walker. Yes. This envelope was postdated January 2, 1973.
The letter itself began with a salutation of "Africa Greets You."
"On January 1, 1973, the downtown New Orleans Police Depart-
ment will be attacked. Eeason — many. But the death of two innocent
brothers will be avenged.''
It ended, "^LA.TA."
As I said, the envelope to the letter was postdated January 2, indi-
cating to us, and I believe also to the police department, if I am cor-
rect, that the letter could have been mailed as late or as early as some-
time Friday night, December 30, prior to the incident at police
headquarters.
We had a holiday ; there was no mail pickup. We have some situa-
tions in the city where the mail is not picked up in the boxes until on
a Monday or Sunday night following a weekend. The letter was turned
over to the New Orleans Police Department, obviously after the in-
cident occurred, and in fact after the Howard Johnson's incident
itself.
The letter was addressed simply to "WWL Television" rather than
to "News Department" or any individual. Those letters, as a matter
of course, generally are disregarded.
There has been a lot of concern on the part of people as to whether
or not had that letter been delivered either before the New Year's
Eve incident or, in fact, before the Howard Johnson's incident,
whether or not it might have aided the police department.
I think it is the general consensus of most people involved that it
probably would not have.
Mr. Lynch. When did you make it available to the police depart-
ment?
Mr. Walker. It was made available, I believe, on the 12th. It was
made available on the 12th, following the incident at Howard John-
son's on the 7th.
Mr. Lynch. Do you know how the police department — I guess we
could ask Superintendent Giarrusso to answer this — was able to iden-
tify that as being from Mark Essex ?
Mr. Walker. It was my understanding it has been. They can verify
that. The reason the letter was turned over, I saw it sometime on the
11th, the morning of the 12th, and the reason it was turned over, I
suspect, was because of the way the letter was signed, "MATA." I
had visited the apartment where Mark Essex lived.
Chairman Pepper. How was that ?
Mr. Walker. It is signed "MATA."
Mr. Lynch. "M-A-T-A."
Mr. Walker. I am not sure, I think this is a Spanish word meaning
to kill. There is also, according to the source that we had, it might
possibly be a derivation of Swahili, indicating an instrument to kill.
124
I had seen that same word on the wall of the apartment of Mark
Essex, and that is the reason it was turned over to the New Orleans
Police Department.
Mr. Lynch. I have no questions of the witness, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Walker, I suspect you would agree it is de-
sirable in an emergency like this for close cooperation and coordina-
tion to be maintained between the police authorities and the media ?
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. I think there has to be a liaison. We should,
I say, probably feel pretty good about our situation in New Orleans,
simply because of the access. I say we have 90 percent access to police
operations and information. That remaining 10 percent, we are always
trying to get, but it is generally of an intelligence nature and some-
times hard to acquire. But that level of cooperation, I think, if nothing
else, during this period of time I think people were at home watching
the incident on television as opposed to being on the streets in the
downtown area interfering with police operations.
Chairman Pepper. This letter, of course, didn't give the addrt^s of
the sender ?
Mr. Walker. No, sir; it did not. I learned the address on the 8th.
following an anonymous telephone call to our office from a female,
who asked if we wanted to know the present and last address of Mark
Essex. Of course, we did. We checked it out. That information was
turned over to the police department.
Chairman Pepper. Did the letter reveal any fingerprints ?
Mr. Walker. That is something I suspect the police department
would have to answer. I believe I am privy to that, but I think the
answer would be better to come from them.
Chairman Pepper. Can you state whether it did or not. Chief ?
Mr. GiARRTJSSo. It was checked but there were no prints. No prints
identifiable as such.
Chairman Pepper. So that if it had been turned over to you from
Mr. Walker's television station, it would have been difficult for you to
identify and locate the sender within a reasonable time ; would it not ?
Mr. GiARRusso. Unquestionably ; yes.
Chairman Pepper. But at least it would have advised you there was
such a person in the neighborhood who was a potentially dangerous
person.
Mr. GiARRUsso. Yes, sir.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, at this time Chief Giarrusso would like
to introduce several members of his panel to describe to the com-
mittee the history of the urban squad in New Orleans and also to de-
scribe the new felony action squad.
Superintendent.
Mr. Giarrusso. Mr. Chairman, Sgt. Warren Woodfork, to my im-
mediate right, is the commanding officer of the felony action squad.
The felony action squad is a concept that was developed and con-
ceived by him approximately 9 months ago. Its purpose, its primary
purpose, is to deal with the crime in the street.
Subsequent to its announcement there was a great deal of contro-
versy in New Orleans because there were groups of people who said
that its intention was to kill blacks only, and certainly it wasn't in-
tended to kill anyone ; it was intended to surpress crime in the streets.
I think Sergeant Woodfork is very capable of taking it from there.
125
Chairman Pepper. Very good. We are pleased to have you, Sergeant
Woodf ork. You may make your statement.
Statement of Warren Woodfork
Mr. Woodfork. As the superintendent has said, the felony action
squad is a group of volunteer police officers selected by the superin-
tendent. They are plainclothes officers. I explain that by saying a little
different from the traditional plainclothes officers.
These officers attire in contemporary clothing and they utilize non-
traditional-type police vehicles. It is principally designed to attack
what we define as street crimes, such as armed robberies, purse snatch-
ings, rapes, illegal carrying of weapons, auto thefts, or any other of-
fense that relies on public streets or sidewalks for successful per-
petration.
I guess, basically, you could say that psychological warfare is the
principal weapon in the felony action squad. We believe that perpe-
trators of crime, or the criminal elements, develop reluctance to com-
mit crimes when they can't easily identify the law enforcement agen-
cies, which makes an apprehension inevitable. It is requisite to com-
mit a crime.
Basically, I say initially, we could measure our success through the
number of apprehensions that we make. Most of the arrests that the
felony action squad makes involve arresting people during the com-
mission of a crime or immediatel}' thereafter. All of this is to eventu-
ally create an atmosphere whereby anyone who perpetrates a crime
feels it is just too risky not being able to readily identify the law
enforcement agency where we would have an atmosphere of little or
no crime.
Chairman Pepper. Have you found that unit to be effective, to be
helpful, in suppressing the street crime ?
Mr. Woodfork. Yes, sir, very much so. We have been in operation
approximately 6 months. I think after a year we will be able to show
some more concrete evidence. But I would say by the number of appre-
hensions, it has met with a great deal of success. Contraiy to some
of the beliefs that they would meet with a lot of resistance in making
arrests, that people would be killed, and what-have-you, in a brief
6-month period only one fatality has resulted and that involved a nian
immediately involved in an armed robbery, whereby he was robbing
another person with a gun and he ended up being fatally wounded.
Other than that, I don't think we have had any more problems than
the guys in uniform have in effecting an arrest.
Chairman Pepper. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Lynch. Superintendent, I wonder if you could now have one
of the members of your panel describe the urban squad and what it
is that squad does.
Mr. GiARRUsso. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, the urban squad in the city of New Orleans was
developed by Sgt. Rinal Martin. His purpose was to deal with sensi-
tive areas where there had been a great deal of distrust and fear, that
existed both between the residents of a certain area of the city of
New Orleans and the police themselves.
I think there was a mutual fear that existed at that time. It was
after there had been a confrontation with a group known as "the
126
Panthers" in the city of New Orleans that this squad was formed. It
was formed to fill the vacuum that began to divide the community at
that time. Its concept is that the police actually render services to the
public.
I believe that what has been done is the genesis of a new type of
police work that we will be looking at over the next 10 or 15 years, in
that police, volunteer police, have gone into an area where they were
disliked and distrusted and they have actually made friends and have
eiSciently ser\'ed the public, so much so now that there is a demand
for similar types of squads to service other sections of the city.
The area in which they went was, I would consider, the only true
ghetto in the city of New Orleans. They operated very effectively
there.
Sergeant Martin can take it from there, sir.
Statement of Rinal Martin
Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, the urban squad was started approxi-
mately 2 years ago. It was organized on February 1, 1971. We took
responsibility for the Desiree project area on February 27, after two
confrontations, as the superintendent said.
Before going into this area these officers were specially trained.
We had what we called stress training. Also, they were volunteer
officers. Their records were analyzed for attitudes, performance, and
awareness of social problems.
We met with community leaders and had civil meetings, and prior
to going into that area we had a whole day of rap sessions with resi-
dents of the area to explain what we were going to do when we moved
into the area with more police.
We were moving into this area as a service rather than an oppressive
force, which happens a lot of times when you increase police service
in an area. If the residents don't know what you are doing they misin-
terpret your goals or your motives.
As a result of this and getting to know the people, and regaining
confidence and getting cooperation with the people and the leaders,
we have been able to effectively reduce crime in this area, and the
people have services.
When we first started in this area the people were so fearful that
they wouldn't turn off their lights at night. The lights in the home
stayed on all night. And as a contrast, the lights in the streets and
courtyards were constantly being shot out or broken by bricks and
bottles.
Two years later, in the same area, we have just the opposite. We
have effective lighting in the streets, in the courts that are able to
stay lit, and the lights in the homes are now put out. People can go
to sleep without their lights.
That is about the genesis of the squad.
Chairman Pepper. Very good. Proceed with the next witness.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Giarrusso, do the other two officers here this morn-
ing have some testimony to give relative to programs in which they
are participating ?
127
Mr. GiARRUSSO. Only Major Poissenot. Mr. Kastner is my strong
right arm for reference on the Howard Johnson affair. Major Poissenot
is the commanding officer of the patrol division of the police depart-
ment in the city of New Orleans. As such, he has innovated on many
occasions, and redeployed personnel so that we have successfully re-
duced crime over the past 2 years.
To mention a few of the things he has done : He has been actively
participating with citizens, with organizations such as Women Against
Crime. There are times when he must go to extremes, and he has in the
past removed all motorcycle men from the streets and put them in areas
to combat burglaries and armed robberies. In 30 or 40 seconds he can
explain these things to you.
Statement of Lloyd Poissenot
Mr. Poissenot, Mr. Chairman, the patrol division, comprises the
eight police precincts, the urban squad, the felony action squad, com-
munication centers, emergency division, and armored division, ap-
proximately 700 people.
We have been working somewhat at a deficit. We don't have full
manpower.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me just a minute. How many police do
you have per thousand population in the city of New Orleans?
Mr. GiARRusso. We have 1,500 commissioned personnel and approxi-
mately 500 civilian personnel.
Mr. Lynch. I think the chairman would like to know how many
you have per capita.
Mr. GiARRusso. I believe it is 2.1 per thousand, but I would have
to sit down and compute it for you. The last time I looked at it, it was
about 2.1 per thousand.
Chairman Pepper. What is it, Mr. Lynch, here in the District?
Mr. Lynch. I believe the indication yesterday, Mr. Chairman, was
approximately 6.6.
Chairman Pepper. Approximately 6.6 per thousand in the District
of Columbia. Of course, no doubt that has had something to do with
the reduction in crime. You would be pleased to have that large a
percentage, wouldn't you ?
Mr. GiARRusso. Yes, sir.
Chairman Pepper. If you had the Federal Government behind you,
maybe you could get a little bit more money.
Mr. Poissenot. Because we have a shortage of personnel at the
time, we had been able to get some overtime and the overtime has been
provided in the forms of task force cars. These are cars that are either
marked cars or unmarked cars, that are manned in both combinations,
uniformed police officers in the marked cars, occasionally uniformed
men in the unmarked cars.
Also, we have the unmarked car with the plainclothes officer doing
followup work.
These have been very efficient, and we have gotten a lot of success
from them.
128
We are constantly trying to change and alter our beat coverage.
Foot-beat coverage, for example, is a very high luxury, so we work
combinations of foot beats and riding beats, so the men can do both
a little more effectively.
By being able to put these people by statistical reference where the
crime is occurring, or where we think it is occurring, we have been
able in many cases to do a pretty good job.
We do need and do hope we could get some additional funding. We
would, of course, be very happy to have the increase in manpower
that would take our forces up to what its expected coverage should
be. But in the meantime, I think by innovative process we are begin-
ning to see some light; we are doing an effective job in trying to re-
duce the on-the-street type of crime.
Chairman Pepper. We are very pleased to hear of these imaginative
procedures and innovations you have inaugurated, Superintendent, in
your great city of New Orleans. What this committee is concerned
about is what can be done further to reduce crime in this country, to
restore a greater degree of safety to our people than they now have.
I would like to ask you a question or two. Do you in the police de-
partment have any sense of frustration or disappointment on account
of the inability of the prosecuting attorney's offices and the courts to
handle cases as rapidly as you feel they should be handled ?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. I believe this is the facet of the j^roblem with which
police departments are confronted throughout the Nation, but I can
talk with a little more authority about the city of New Orleans.
Yes, we are confronted with this problem; in that the criminal jus-
tice system as such is fragmented and has little coordination among the
forces of criminal justice; namely, the police, the district attorney, the
judges, the probation and parole officers, and the jails. There is a differ-
ent approach, each is a separate entity, and as such we are working
at cross purposes on occasions.
Unrelated to that, when we talk about problems, in my opinion, is
something that is very important to our city. It is the number of
youths that are committing crimes of violence. I don't have any ready
answers for it, but I think that pointing out the problem as it exists
among the juveniles, in the city of New Orleans anyhow, is one that we
are concerned about, one where legal limitations prevent us from tak-
ing effective action to protect the public.
We have ideas that cretainly are inconsistent with some of the con-
stitutional rights that people have. We would like to see some changes
made in the criminal justice system, in that people would be tried
much faster rather than getting out on bond, knowing that a case is
made against them and several other crimes are committed, because
they know they are going to go up ultimately on one of the cases, but
they will not be tried on all of them. This is fairly common knowl-
edge among the criminal element in the community.
Chairman Pepper. What about the correctional institutions, the
penal institutions? Do you have a high rate of recidivism in those
institutions ?
Mr. GiARRUSSO. Our figures show something like 85 percent of those
in the parish or county jail, as it is more commonly known, runs about
85 percent. The rate of recidivism runs about 85 percent. I don't be-
lieve in an iron glove approach to that. I do sincerely believe a large
percentage of these people are rehabilitative.
129
On the other hand, I believe there is a marginal group in our so-
ciety that medical science and other disciplines don't have an answer
for yet, and they should be separated from society for the sake of
society.
Chairman Pepper. Do you have a large State penal institution such
as we have in Raiford, Fla., which is your main State penal
institution ?
jNIr. GiARRUsso. Yes ; we do have a State penitentiary.
Chairman Pepper. Where is that located ?
Mr. GiARRUsso. At Angola, La. It is a large penal farm.
Chairman Pepper. It is in a rural area ?
Mr. GiARRusso. Yes, sir ; it is.
Chairman Pepper. And the population of it is 2,000 or 3,000?
Mr. GiARRUsso. Something in the neighborhood thereof ; yes, sir.
Chairman Pepper. That seems to have been the pattern in the build-
ing of these institutions around the country. Personally, I know about
Attica, which is a little town, small village, in New York; Eaiford,
Fla., is a small town. You are telling me yours is located in a rural
area.
The idea seems to have been, years ago, to put them out in those
rural areas. And now the trend seems to be the other way, put them
in the city, make them very much smaller, 200 or 300 population, and
make available halfway houses and employment for those who are
eligible for that, and the like.
Do you have any institutions like that in Louisiana; any modern-
type penal institutions ?
Mr. GiARRUSso. We have no such modern-type institution. However,
the one jail that we do have in our city is one that is currently hous-
ing about 1,100 people. The capacity of that jail is about 700. With
Federal funds they are now building another jail, a new jail, a modern
institution, which will house, I believe, a total of 480 people, which
seems inconsistent with the amount of crime that is being committed.
I don't know what they are going to do with the remainder of the
citizens when they move them. We are under Federal court order to
cease and desist using that jail in 1975, which is 2 years hence.
Chairman Pepper. Is that all, Mr. Lynch ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
Chairman Pepper. Do you have any questions, Mr. Nolde ?
Mr. XoLDE. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Superintendent, we want to thank you and your
associates for coming here today and giving us this very valuable and
helpful information. We are very grateful to you.
Thank you very much.
Mr. GiARRusso. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Pepper. Chief, is it agreeable if we incorporate into the
record at this hearing the photographs of the walls of the room where
Mark Essex was living, the participant in the Howard Johnson
incident ?
Mr. Giarrusso. Whatever is the desire of this committee.
Chairman Pepper. I think it will be very interesting to have them
in the record, because what you see in these pictures is very revealing
as to what was in the mind of this man.
Thank you again.
Mr. Giarrusso. Thank you veiy much.
[The photographs referred to follow :]
130
■m'*-
mm.
c
rrrrrrri'"irfimit'ri'""':if/
rrrrrrrni'rrrifii""'''.fr>7irr
irrrtrnnniirnn'-rniimin
tirnrrrnn: • • • .'!iiiti"""<
131
132
a-,
h
<^.
^^.
133
134
/3CV
e
^1
:> ^^
O"*'
^
1
-■^K^^
<i
-«>^
' >^
' w •*
< ''^
* '?».T^
\
»'"''•■
4
^■^.'S
or
4
135
/
i
r
95-158 O— 73— pt. 1 10
136
Chairman Pepper. We will take a recess until 2 o'clock.
[Whereupon, at 1 :35 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at
2 p.m., this same day.]
Afternoon Session
Mr. Rangel (presiding). The Select Committee on Crime will come
to order.
We have as witnesses, Chief Winston Churchill of the Indianapolis
Police Department and Capt. W. R. Greene, commander, homicide
and robbery branch of the Indianapolis Police Department.
On behalf of the chairman and the committee I thank you for tak-
ing time off from your busy schedules to help us to determine what
the Congress can do in order to make our streets more safe.
If you have statements, you may enter them in whole or in part in
the record, and if you have testimony that deals with it, you can give
it either by reading your prepared statement or by testifying to any-
thing you would like to testify to.
STATEMENT OF WINSTON L. CHURCHILL, CHIEF, INDIANAPOLIS
(IND.) POLICE DEPARTMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM ROB-
ERT GREENE, CAPTAIN, HOMICIDE AND ROBBERY DIVISION
Mr. Rangel. Chief Churchill, do you have a prepared statement?
Mr. Churchill. Not a prepared written statement, sir, but I am
prepared to speak to the committee.
Mr. Rangel. Thank you.
Mr. Churchill. We consider it a very definite honor to be asked
to come to testify before this committee. We feel that Indianapolis
has made great progress in our effort to reduce crime in our com-
munity. We feel that there are some specific reasons why this progress
has been made.
We feel that in the final analysis, the police department does not
control crime in the community. In truth, the citizens themselves
control crime. I feel there would no longer be prostitutes walking the
streets in any city if it were not for those who hire them. By the same
token, there cannot be a gambling establishment that could continue
to operate if it were not for those who go in there to gamble.
A burglar and thief would not be able to exist if it weren't for
those who eagerly keep at his heels to buy what he has stolen. There-
fore, it is mandatory on the part of the police department that we
establish a very close liaison and working relationship with the
community so that by this effort the community might know they
control crime.
By the same token, we must work hand in hand to make the com-
munity understand that by their efforts and their cooperation with the
police department, will this success be achieved. The communities
themselves are the key.
The police department has tried many innovative procedures and
plans, some of which have failed ; but one important one has succeeded
in bringing the policeman and the community closer together. Prior
to 1967, the Indianapolis Police Department, like most police depart-
ments in the country, purchased an automobile as a patrol car, which
at that time was required to operate 24 hours a day.
137
In the wintertime the engine was seldom shut off. We devised
a plan whereby every patrol officer could have his own assigned car.
This required increasing the size of our fleet by four times, thus
putting more police cars on the streets of our city than we had ever
known before. I am satisfied that the people of our community like
the plan and they feel a degree of comfort in seeing these vehicles
on the streets.
By the same token, I am satisfied that the criminal element in
Indianapolis feels very uncomfortable with this vast number of
vehicles on the street.
The police department has prepared considerable literature to
be distributed to various cities. A copy of that literature has been
given to each of you on this committee. But that primarily deals
with what the police department has done in making a patrol car
available to every individual officer. He not only uses that vehicle
during his tour of duty but he takes it home with him and keeps it
for the remainder of the day. He is allowed to drive the vehicle to
the store, to church, wherever he might see fit to take it during his
off-duty hours.
It may even sound amusing, but if an officer is not married, we
allow him to date in that vehicle. So there is a high visibility of police
in the city of Indianapolis.
More importantly, we should tell you how we did this, because I
would stress that at the very start of this explanation that not 1 cent
of Federal money was used to put this plan in operation. Each year
in the police department's budget we allotted funds for a certain num-
ber of vehicles. Our whole premise was based on the idea we wanted
to save time in the police department, that time was important, and
often we would realize on the day shift alone vehicles had to be taken
out of service to be gassed, to be washed, to be serviced, and all of this
time a police officer was standing idly by while that piece of equip-
ment was being worked on.
Two, we were forced to be aware that a vehicle working in the
northern part of the city would well have to check out of service 30
minutes early so the officer might have time to drive to headquarters,
exchange the equipment and driver, and the new police officer drive
30 minutes back to his district before reporting for service. So we real-
ized that we were losing a minimum of 1 hour per shift, per car, per
day, because of the vehicle shortage.
We took the money that we had allotted in our budget for automo-
biles and asked the city council to grant us an advance of $650,000 so
that we could purchase in one lump sum a new patrol fleet. Now, this
was not easily done. But we prepared figures which are available in
our handouts to show tliat we were in a position, having gone through
many tests, to show that it was a sound program.
Mr. Raxgel. How many vehicles are we talking about?
Mr. Churchill. We are talking about a total patrol fleet of 455
vehicles, totally equipped.
But we realized when we saved 8 man-hours that we received in
return a police officer, already trained and uniformed and ready to
go on the street. The time we saved with these vehicles amounted to
the salaries of 70 new police officers for our department. The spinoffs
138
of this program have been so broad, many that we did not even
envision.
The national standards now for robbery will tell us that the average
robbery in the United States amounts to $94; the average burglary
amounts to $136; the average larceny in the country, $71; and the
average vehicle theft, $1,100. Since putting these cars into service in
our city we have had a reduction in 1 year of 329 robberies. That 329
multiplied by the $94 national average saved the city, our citizens,
$30,926.
We have reduced burglary by 1,105 cases; again multiplying by the
national average, we saved our community $150,280.
Our larcenies were reduced by 1,851 cases and, by the national aver-
age amounted to savings to our community of $131,421. Our vehicle
thefts were reduced by 2,438, thus meaning a savings to our community
of $2,706,180.
Now, all told, for the $650,000 advance given to us by the council
we show a reduction in crime, when figured on a dollar- and-cents
basis, in excess of $3 million.
But there is more for the car plan. We began immediately to realize
the reduction in the number of traffic fatalities because our police
vehicles were visible all over the city. We reduced our fatality rate
in Indianapolis by 31 persons in 1 year. We reduced our personal
injury accidents by 1,136, and our property damage accidents by 2,244.
The National Safety Council tells us that each traffic fatality aver-
ages out to an amount of $38,700. Each personal injury accident aver-
ages $2,300. Each property damage accident, $360. When we multiply
those figures by the amount of reduction in our city, it comes to a stag-
gering total in automobile accidents alone of a savings of $4,620,000.
When we then show the reduction of crime related to dollars and
cents, when we show the reduction of automobile accidents and fatali-
ties in dollars and cents and then just give the car program 20 per-
cent of the credit, that shows a return of recurring value for the
$650,000 investment of $2,122,000 for our car fleet.
This program has been studied carefully. It has excellent control,
and we are operating our vehicle fleet in the Indianapolis Police
Department now for 6.5 cents a mile. I don't know of any taxicab
fleet or any other organization operating a fleet that cheaply.
We have found that the cars are receiving much better care. In
fact, many of the officers are now washing their own vehicles. The
cars are much cleaner. Consequently, when we trade in a third of
our fleet at the end of each year, the resale value of those automobiles
is way up over what we used to receive for a completely wornout
vehicle.
So the automobile program in Indianapolis is a good one. I am
proud that we have been a leader in this field and that many other
cities are now considering the possibility of using the Indianapolis
fleet plan.
We feel it has a great future and we have no intention at all of
abandoning this program which has proven to be such a great value
to our community.
Now, there are other things that Indianapolis has done to assist
in the relationship between police and community. Some of them
are unique and unusual. We openly invite the people of our com-
139
munity to come and ride in our police cars during the officer's tour
of duty, and in the year or 14 months this program has been in effect
we have transported no less than 6,000 community people in our
automobiles.
We ask only that they sign a liability release so they would not sue
the city should they be injured while they are in that car. But we
openly invite them to come and ride in the police car, see what it
is like, and share this experience with the jwlice officer. Once this is
done, the police department realizes that we have many new friends
and a close liaison has been established between the department and
the people of our community.
We also openly invite people to purchase police radios and listen
to them, that the codes and signals that we use are not meant to be
clandestine or secretive, but rather to save broadcast time. Recently,
we changed our codes and signals to more closely conform with na-
tional standards. We openly told the people that this change was
coming and that if they would like, if they would send us a self-
addressed, stamped envelope, we would be happy to send them a
copy of our codes and signals.
To date, we have sent out nearly 20,000 of those. People now often
write to us, telling us that our dispatchers are even radio broadcast
personalities.
So the community is aware of what the police department is doing
and they want to help.
The important thing is that hand in hand we combat crime by the
individual citizen knowing that he must accept the responsibility to
obey the law willingly, not because we are forced to but because the
people of our community clearly see it is to their advantage to obey
the law.
I have brought with me and placed here on the corner of the table —
and I believe they are going to plug it in for us now — a police radio
receiver. I have asked the Regency Electronic Co. in Indianapolis to
make this available to me, because there is a question in my mind as
to whether or not the gentlemen who are serving on this committee,
this very important Committee on Crime, have ever in fact taken the
time to listen to a radio broadcast of the police department in Wash-
ington, D.C., to see what is happening in this community.
Captain, would you turn on the radio? You will note this is a
scanner-type radio and that it moves very quickly from one fre-
quency to another, seeking out the call that might be made.
Mr. Greene. Very briefly, this radio is on call to a scanner put out
by Radio Electronics in Indianapolis. This particular radio has been
set up with four frequencies of the Washington, D.C., Police Depart-
ment. As the chief explained to you, it continually scans, as the dis-
patcher or control officer in the car will come in and talk.
Mr. WiXN. You are picking up D.C. calls now ?
Mr. Greene. Yes, sir.
Mr. Churchill. I was a little bit surprised. I set this radio up in my
hotel room last night and listened for some time. I don't believe they
are quite as busy here as we are in Indianapolis.
Mr. Greene. As you can see, this also picks up car-to-car transmis-
sions.
Mr. Churchill. Many times the Indianapolis Police Department
has been fortunate to receive telephone calls from citizens who are
140
aware that they have just been pursuing a stolen car and the perpetra-
tor of that crime had leaped from that car and ran, and the citizen
quickly explains they have heard that broadcast and have just wit-
nessed that the individual ran into the back yard next door and is
hiding in the shrubbery, thus assisting in the apprehension of the
individual.
Mr. Rangel. This doesn't assist the perpetrator in any way?
Mr. Churchill. I am sure to some degree it does, but they have
always monitored our radio. And I see absolutely no reason, while
we realize the bad guy is listening, I certainly don't want to deprive
the good guys from listening and from helping us. We feel it has
strong advantage when the citizen knows what the police department
is doing.
Further, I am satisfied that no police department or other agency
of government has any fear from the community when they know
the truth about what you are doing and what you are endeavoring to
do. The community will quickly fall in line and respond favorably
to the police agency when they hear, constantly, of the effort that
you are putting forth to protect them.
We have three chaplains in our department and we urge those chap-
lains to invite all of the new ministers of our city at least once a year
to come to police headquarters and go out in our police cars and ride
with the individual officers.
I will share privately with you that I know very well that on the
day when a young officer has someone riding with him that he stretches
just a little more on that occasion to do a good job.
One of the most difficult areas of relationship between the com-
munity and the police department lies in the area of narcotics and
dangerous drugs. Much misinformation, I think, has been given in
this field. So we strove to reach some medium whereby we could con-
vince the public that the information we wanted to give them about
this problem was true and accurate and correct.
The best way we found to do this was when the police department
was going to have an inservice training program, to train our own
officers in the latest techniques and laws and rules relative to narcotics
and dangerous drugs, that we extend open invitations to all of these
student presidents, the student councils of all of the high schools, the
presidents of the PTA, neighborhood organizations, to come to police
headquarters, sit with us in our retraining sessions with our police,
and hear it at the same time we are informing the officers.
We have found this has met with tremendous response. And in our
last inservice training program for police, we likewise at the same
time, gave narcotics and dangerous drugs information to over 1,400
citizens of our community. This we will continue to do.
At the same time, the police department prints numerous pamphlets
and publications for the citizens to learn how to better protect them-
selves, protect their property, and for women to protect themselves.
Copies of all of that literature is in the packet we have given to you.
[See material received for the record at the end of Mr. Churchill's
testimony.]
We are satisfied that in 2 calendar years, the reduction of 26 per-
cent in crime in Indianapolis has been largely the result of the lines
of cooperation and communication which have been established be-
141
tween the community and our department. And when that type of a
cooperative line is established, I believe it almost mandates that our
crime will continue to recede and that the public and the citizens of
Indianapolis, knowing their police department is eagerly endeavoring
to help them, will continue to cooperate.
With that, I would say, Congressman Pepper, as chief of police
of the city of Indianapolis and as a representative of the officers of
that department, and speaking, too, for the Regency Electronic Co.,
I would be most pleased if you would accept this police radio with our
compliments, in the hopes that being chairman of this committee you
will find time to listen to it and be more knowledgeable about the crime
and activities of the AVashington Police.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much. That is very generous
of you, Mr. Churchill. I accept it with a great deal of pleasure.
Mr. Churchill. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Pepper. I am sorry I was delayed over in the Capitol and
didn't get to hear the earlier part of your statement, which I will care-
fully note. We were looking forward to your coming here because of
the novelty of your program in establishing such close accord and
working relationship with the people of Indianapolis. I can tell from
your statement that you have done a very fine job.
We are very pleased that you could come and tell us about it.
Mr. Churchill. I thank you, sir. We honor the invitation.
Chairman Pepper. Any more questions, Mr. Lynch ?
Mr. Lynch. I have several questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chief Churchill, you indicated that it was your judgment, based on
the December 1972 evaluation of the fleet plan, that that program and
the spinoffs from that program had saved your department and the
taxpayers of the city some $3 million. Is that correct ?
Mr. Churchill. That is true. And that $3 million figure, sir, is based
on the idea of giving the car program only 20 percent of the credit.
Mr. Lynch. Could you tell the committee what your annual police
department budget is in the city of Indianapolis ?
Mr. Churchill. The annual police department budget at this time
is $17 million.
Mr. Lynch. So that saving would approximate 20 percent of your
total budget ?
Mr. Churchill. That is true. And I find that while the public is
greatly concerned about the assaults appearing on the citizens, and
so on, when you talk to the councilmen and so forth to get money to
relate to these programs, that when you turn and relate the savings in
dollars and cents, it seems to be much more meaningful.
I am sure the citizens also appreciate the fact that they can see in a
very real way that the car program is a valuable one, not only to the
department, but to them as individual citizens.
Mr. Lynch. Chief, how much do you pay a starting patrolman in
Indianapolis?
Mr. Churchill. We pay a starting patrolman $7,200. That is not
a great deal of money, but I am proud to tell you the Indianapolis
Police Department not only has a full complement of officers, but a
waiting list of over 400 applicants.
Mr. Lynch. Does the fact that you provide what amounts to a per-
sonal vehicle for those patrolmen help you as a recruiting device?
142
Mr. Churchill. I feel that may be one of the advantages. One spin-
off that is very important, and perhaps I should mention to you here,
is that we provide these vehicles on a take-home basis only to the
patrol officers. When I became the chief of police I was surprised to
find that the average tenure of the uniformed officer on the street was
about 2.4 years.
Now, that is a great deal of responsibility to place upon an individual
with no more experience than that. So I wanted the car program to be
an incentive to that officer to remain a uniformed patrol officer and
not to be so eager to transfer away from that division.
We have found now that has expanded. The average tenure of each
officer is almost 5 years.
We have even had some detectives who have indicated they would
like to transfer back to uniform so they might have the advantage of
a vehicle.
Mr. Lynch. Are you able to make a judgment as to how many hours
those vehicles are operated on a nonduty basis during a week by an
average patrolman?
Mr. Churchill. No, sir ; we have not been able to evaluate that. We
have realized a vast number of felony and misdemeanor arrests, which
have been made by off-duty officers.
Mr. Lynch. Do you have any figures about that, Chief ?
Mr. Churchill. In the first year we had the car program in effect,
84 felony arrests, including arrest for bank robbery, were made.
Mr. Lynch. Out of the total of how many made by your department,
roughly ?
Mr. Churchill. Out of a total of 33,604 total arrests ; that is, both
felony and misdemeanor. But we recorded, that we know of, 84 felony
arrests we would not have made otherwise.
Mr. Lynch. Chief, I wonder if you could show the committee some
of the materials which you publish and distribute in the community ?
Mr. Churchill. There are many. You have copies of each of them
in your folders. But we try to help our shops and stores by putting
out pamphlets and having seminars on how best to stop shoplifting.
For the traffic safety, a real, down-to-earth pamphlet, "How Fast
Can You Die?" And this one has been most meaningful, "Teenagers
Want To Know What Is the Law for a Teenager."
We have in effect in Indianapolis in the narcotics area, a joint en-
forcement team made up of local officers, county officers, and State
officers. The purpose of the joint team is to direct their efforts toward
the narcotics and dangerous drug pushers around the schools. This
booklet has been most helpful to use, and in the last calendar year, the
joint enforcement team effected 384 arrests of pushers in the areas of
our schools.
We publish and distribute literature on how to properly describe
a suspect on the premise that a citizen looks, but he really does not
see, and perhaps we can give him some literature he can follow and
if he does follow it, then what he does look at, he sees and remembers
what he has looked at.
Publications on women and how to protect themselves, and many
speeches, are given every year to women's organizations.
"How To Protect the Businessman." For the homeowner, "Are You
Inviting a Burglar Into Your Home?" And on and on goes the list.
143
Mr. Lynch. How do you distribute those ? This pamphlet on teen-
agers which I just glanced through, saying, "What Is the Law" — how
many copies did you distribute and how do you distribute them ?
Mr. Churchill. We have distributed already with that program
over 100,000 copies and I am sure there will be more. The police depart-
ment also has a rather large display of vehicles, motorcycles, guns,
narcotics, this sort of thing, and we ":o from one shopping center
to another, setting up our equipment, and urgently asking people,
"Come visit with us. Look at the equipment you are purchasing for
your police department," and at the same time we hand out hundreds
and hundreds of copies of the literature, so that we might best try
to reach the people of our community.
I think you will also find in that pamphlet, of which we are very
happy and very proud, that one of the Indianapolis businesses recently
saw fit to have a full page advertisement in the Indianapolis news-
papers :
Indianapolis is a safer place to live because ur our police department. We
like your action. Your perfect record of 100 percent clearance on homicide cases
in 1972 is a first in modern-city history. Over the same period, the Indianapolis
crime rate was down 26 percent. It marked the fourth consecutive year of crime
reduction in Indianapolis. Your admirable record is a taxpayer's delight. It
was achieved without increase in manpower. Your eflSciency has been supple-
mented by well-planned and administpred community action programs, the kind
that create public awareness for the need to cooperate with police against crime.
We are very proud of the relationship that exists between our
department and the community.
I have with me here today, Capt. Robert Greene, who is the com-
manding officer of the homicide and robbery branch of our depart-
ment. He is here because he and his men have achieved a record that
I know of nowhere in the country that has been equaled, and that is
a total 100-percent clearance solving of every homicide which occurred
in Indianapolis in our last calendar year.
Captain Greene.
Statement of William Robert Greene
Mr. Greene. Thank you very much, Chief.
Chairman Pepper and distinguished members of this committee,
it is a pleasure also for me to be here and quite an honor, truthfully.
I would like to talk to you just briefly about our homicide and robbery
branch of the Indianapolis Police Department.
I can't really say we probably do much more than what other homi-
cide branches have done, but we put together a program that we found
very beneficial to us and we finished with 100 percent clearance last
year, a record of which I, personally, am very proud. And for my men,
I am extremely proud.
Our branch is a relatively small branch of the police department.
It consists of 40 members. It is divided primarily into homicide and
robbery branches, because they run together so often. The functions
of this branch and squads are a little bit unique in that we investigate
all crimes of violence against human beings.
Our function and our main responsibility, of course, is with the
investigations of murder. Along with that we do investigate all rob-
beries, shootings, cuttings, stabbings, rape, incest, sodomy, exposing
144
and molesting; any kind of violence from one human being against
another.
When I took over this branch, and Chief Churchill appointed me
to it a year ago last March, we had just experienced a time where we
had seven unsolved murders in the city of Indianapolis. At the time
that the chief appointed me to this job I was in charge of police
community relations, an area which I feel helped quite a bit in step-
ping into this job of homicide and robbery.
It was really like coming back home to me after I had spent 6I/2
years previously there as an investigator.
We made several changes, really not big changes, but we tried to
become more professional in our approach to investigating crime.
And I suppose probably the small insignificant thing that really added
up for us in the long run was we had operated under the theory that
we could get by with one homicide car on the streets of the city of
Indianapolis, which I didn't feel we could, and we added an additional
one, where we now have two cars on the street, 24 hours a day, 365
days a year.
Our primary idea and concept behind this, in my personal feeling,
is that our success came because we were able to get to the scene and
be right at the initial scene of the crime and start from there and
follow it completely through. Immediate response was a big help to
us in solving these crimes, which is what we do now. Every time one
of our patrol cars is sent on a homicide or a suicide or a police shooting,
we immediately dispatch one of our homicide cars at the same time.
Now, the initial homicide officer who arrives at that scene is auto-
matically charged with that investigation. He picks it up from the
time that he receives the radio run, and stays with the case until the
man is sentenced in court and the case is closed. It is all assigned to
one man.
Now, we, of course, divide our section into different parts, and most
all of our robbery personnel are people who have worked homicide at
one time. Another change we made is when we have a homicide where —
say, there was a white perpetrator — we automatically assign one of
our white robbery teams as a backup investigative unit. This comes
about quite often because many of our homicides are the result of
robberies.
We do the same if we have a black perpetrator. We assign a black
robbery team as a backup unit. We have found this has been very
helpful to us, not only because of adding more men to the assignments,
but the fact these men are able to better communicate, a lot of times,
with people of their own race than they are with opposite races.
Robbery investigations are handled the same way. We have black
officers investigating black robberies ; white officers investigating white
robberies. The logic behind this concept is that investigators can de-
velop more contacts and informants among their own race, and we
have found it has been very beneficial to us.
We are also very interested in, and we work quite extensively on, all
firearms investigations. These are handled also by our office. One man
is primarily responsible for conducting comprehensive investigations
into each case. And along with that, we try to get him to develop a
history of each firearm that we come in contact with.
145
Now, the primary thrust of our investigative technique in homicide
last year was to immediately saturate the area where we had a homicide.
Again, when we have one — say, late at night or during the day — all
homicide and robbery personnel automatically suspend their investi-
gations for that period, go right to the scene of the homicide, and
assist the first officer who arrives on the scene, and who acts as the
coordinator.
The first detective who arrives on the scene as I said, is directly re-
sponsible for the investigation, and it is not uncommon at all for him
to be a patrolman detective assigned to this car. When he arrives on
the scene, regardless of what ranking officer of the Indianapolis Police
Department is on that scene, the homicide investigator is in complete
charge of the complete investigation.
We have felt that it works much better this 'way since if this man
is the one who has the ultimate responsibility of handling this case
and is attempting to see that justice is brought about swiftly, then he
should handle the investigation from start to finish.
Now, in all of our investigations, we made an effort to develop a very
strong prosecution case. Quite often, and very truthfully, we work
harder today to base these cases on physical evidence rather than eye-
witness accounts. We have found that through legal maneuvering and
court delays and prolonging of trials and change of venue out of
county, that eyewitnesses sometimes do not do as well as we feel that
they could or can do and quite often over a period of time their memory
has a tendency to slip occasionally.
As the chief told you, we are deeply involved in public information
and education in our police department, and as you notice, some of the
pamphlets the chief just showed to you my men use quite often when
they go out and give talks to different civic organizations, block clubs,
and church groups.
We have had a A-ery high morale factor in this particular branch and
I think we operate each month — ^ve knew we were on our way — it is
kind of like, I would liken it to a pitcher pitching a "no hit/no run"
game. We saw it coming, yet nobody wanted to talk about it. So I
think as each case came in, the esprit de corps picked up a little bit more
and the men put forth a tremendous effort to get it solved.
We have found the use of informants is especially helpful in our solv-
ing of homicides, and we use them quite extensively in Indianapolis.
But our informants are not just the type you would think about when
you use the word "informant." As we talk about our public awareness
of what goes on in the police department, quite often — and I can think
of three cases in particular last year, where we had come up against a
stone wall and were unable to solve the case, where we called our police
artist in and, through witnesses, made composite sketches of the men we
felt were responsible for these homicides.
I am very happy to say these were published by the news media and
the papers and TV, and all three of those cases were solved by people
and citizens in the city of Indianapolis, making anonymous calls, giv-
ing us the people to check out : and all three of them panned out and
we were able to solve the crime.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me, Mr. Greene. You touched on the ques-
tion of rewards when you spoke about the informants that you get.
It generally is considered here, I think, in Washington, that the break
146
in the case where Senator Stennis was shot in front of his home came
from the rewards that were offered.
I believe the State of Mississippi offered $50,000 reward. I don't
know whether there was more or not. It occurred to me, whether or
not the Federal Government might with propriety perhaps join States
in making reward money available to the police department. Would
that be feasible and helpful?
Mr. Greene. I am sure it would be. We have operated in Indian-
apolis over the past years without a reward fund. But we were able
to operate. Our city council has seen fit just recently to consider setting
up a $50,000-a-year fund to be used for rewards. We feel that, yes,
this would be a big assist to us in solving some homicides.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you. Go right ahead.
Mr. Greene. I tried to outline briefly to you just what we do and
how we operate, and as I say, I am extremely proud of this unit be-
cause of the fact that the average age of our investigators is only 32
years old, and with a year and a half experience as homicide investi-
gators I feel that they have done an outstanding job. Along with
that, I think this record was due to, not only dedication on the part
of the investigators, but also the increased cooperation that we had
between our police branches, individual branches within the police
department.
We utilize our laboratory technicians quite a bit. We have a mobile
crime lab that we call to most all homicide scenes. Along with that, we
have a man designated as nothing but an evidence technician. We have
two chemists assigned to our laboratory who we utilize quite a bit.
In one particular case that we had last year we used the mobile
crime lab, the chemist, the evidence technician, and fingerprint tech-
nicians at the crime scene. It was actually beautiful to just sit back
and watch these men, who are highly skilled and trained, do their
functions. Thirteen different fingerprints were picked up in a house
at the scene of one brutal murder we had in Indianapolis.
When you have this cooperation — and I would probably be remiss
if I didn't add that just a little bit of plain luck went along with it,
too. A lot of dedicated time, a lot of enthusiasm by the officers, and
a tremendous amount of support by the public and by the other police
agencies within our department and additional departments, all of
these were what helped us to account for a 100-percent clearance.
Chairman Pepper. I think I might add that competent people often
appear to have luck on their side, perhaps more than the incompetent
people.
Mr. Churchill. Thank you.
Chairman Pepper. Anything else ?
Mr. Lynch. I would like to ask Captain Greene whether the mobile
evidence lab is sent to the scene of other index crimes, or is that re-
served for homicide cases ?
Mr. Greene. No ; it isn't. It is used quite extensively at serious bur-
glaries. In fact, the day we left, it was called to the scene of a hit-
and-run traffic fatality.
Mr. Lynch. In 1971, the Indianapolis standard metropolitan sta-
tistical area reported some 31,000 index offenses. What proportion of
those were in the confines of your city I don't happen to know offhand.
147
To how many of those crime scenes would you dispatch the mobile
crime lab and its technicians ? Have you any idea ?
Mr. Greene. No, I don't. I might add that our new mobile crime
lab just went into operation in the latter part, second half, of the year
1972. Prior to that a lot of this work was done by our homicide investi-
gators and our evidence technician, which was one man.
Another unique thin^ I think we should mention is our officers who
are given the responsibility of investigating homicides and police
shootings are only 12 in number. And these 12 men, as I stated, put
forth a tremendous effort last year, and I like to think they are all just
about as topnotch as any police officers as we have.
Mr. Lyxch. Would it materially assist the clearance rate if you
could send crime lab technicians to the scene of all index offenses ?
Mr. Greene. I definitely think it would. In fact, it is our plan to use
the unit as often as we can get it out there.
Mr. Lynch. How many of those would you have to have in order
to do that ? You couldn't do it with one, could you ?
Mr. Greene. We are right now. Of course, I would like to see more
than one.
Mr. Lynch. You are doing what right now ?
Mr. Greene. We are operating with one mobile crime lab now.
Mr. Lynch. I understand that. How many would you need ?
Mr. Churchill. I would respond, a minimum of four.
Mr. Lynch. What is the cost of that mobile crime lab and the tech-
nicians who man it 'i
Mr. Greene. I think it was $17,000.
Mr. Churchill. About $17,000. The technician's salary to run it a
year would probably be $10,000 to $11,000.
You are talking totally about $30,000 a unit per year.
Mr. Lynch. CTiief, you have approximately 1,100 sworn police offi-
cers in your department; is that correct?
Mr. Churchill. Yes, sir. •*
Mr. Lynch. Of those 1,100, how many of them might be on the
street in patrol functions at any given time; or during the high-crime
period of the day, for instance ?
Mr. Churchill. On street patrol in uniform, cars, talking about
uniform officers, 140 at a time. That does not mclude traffic personnel.
That is strictly district patrol officers.
Mr. Lynch. About 140 who would he manning patrol vehicles ?
Mr. Churchill. That is true, sir.
Mr. Lynch. Two-man cars ?
Mr. Churchill. We use all one-man car operations in Indianapolis,
in all areas. We have no two-man cars.
Mr. Lynch. Do you have foot patrol ?
Mr. Churchill. We have only two officers on foot patrol, at the
downtown bus station.
Mr. Lynch. Why do you use only one-man cars ?
Mr. Churchill. It is a matter of economics, really. We know that,
unfortunately, law enforcement agencies today are involved in a great
many activities for the community which are not crime related. Many
of those activities do not require two policemen. A search for a lost
child, often assisting an invalid, a dog bite report, many things of
this nature do not require two officers. And thus it is a matter of
economics, and the saving of time and money.
148
Mr. Lynch. How much money in LEAA funds, if you can answer,
Chief, did your department receive last year?
Mr. Churchill. Approximately $3 million.
Mr. Lynch. Wliat did you use that for ?
Mr. ChurchHvL. We have several programs underway, one rather
extensive program in the juvenile branch area. We have a consider-
able number of funds in our computer program.
Mr. Lynch. What is your computer program, sir?
Mr. Churchill. It is a very interesting thing. We are one of the
first cities. I am sure, in the country to use what we call a direct-
case-entry system. That is how we know our statistical picture is ac-
curate and true, because when the imiformed officer makes an investi-
gation and makes a report, that report goes directly to the computer.
The information is then broken down by the computer and put out
in various parts of the department for use. But when we need a statis-
tic, then we need only program the computer in such a way it gives it
back to us. Our FBI report each month comes directly from the com-
puter and the computer is giving us that report from direct case his-
tories by the officers who originally made those investigations.
I think the computer, more and more, is going to be a valuable tool
to law enforcement agencies. But it is one field where there is a tremen-
dous shortage of technicians and skilled people to program and oper-
ate those computers. We know the officer in our department, for exam-
ple, who is very skilled, has been offered time and again jobs from
industry that we cannot compete with in the salary field. So we have
to rely on the dedication of that individual officer to stay with us.
Mr. Lynch. Chief, it appears that the two highlights of your t«sti-
mony are the conspicuous presence of the policemen in 140 cars, and,
in a city the size of Indianapolis, that strikes me as a fairly good
proportion? You also touched on the effort your department spends
in citizen-oriented programs.
You 'have approximately 1.7 policemen per 1,000 population. We
learned here yesterday that in the District of Columbia we have some
6.6 or more policemen per 1,000. Do you regard the size of your police
force, its present complement of sworn personnel, as adequate to do
the job you are asked to do in the city of Indianapolis?
Mr. Churchill. Yes; I would respond to you that it is. I don't
know any police chief or commander who would not like to have more
people. But I believe that it is mandatory in police administrators
to endeavor to operate that police department on the same basis any
good business manager would nm his business, and that we do not
have a great number of personnel and dollars to pay for those per-
sonnel, so it is a very fluid approach to continually evaluate your own
operation and the use of that personnel to get the best out of it you
can.
The whole premise behind the car program was to save time. We
are wasting time and we are wasting policemen. And we need to
look at ourselves verv critically before we can very quickly run into
the council a,nd say, "I need more men."
Mr. Lynch. Your judgment is that you can live with the number
of men you have ; is that correct ?
Mr. Churchill. Yes, sir ; that is true.
149
Mr. Lynch. That is very interesting, because of the 13 cities which
will be testifying before this committee, you have the lowest rate of
police per capita.
Mr. Churchill. And I might tell you, sir, we in the police depart-
ment in Indianapolis have not asked our council for an increase in our
number of personnel in the last 6 years.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Chief.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Chief, there are two or three questions. What
impresses me is that you were determined you were going to reduce
crime in Indianapolis; and you have done it in the 5 years you have
been chief of police, have you not ?
Mr. Churchill. Yes, sir.
Chairman Pepper. What we are concerned with is what can still be
done in the future to reduce crime in this country. You made a fine
record. Many of the cities have made commendable records, but we
still have a lot of violent and serious crime.
Now, what can you do to reduce still further the amount of violent
and serious crime in Indianapolis ?
Mr. Churchill. Sir, I am going to work very hard with the rela-
tionship that I have with the community to see if we can get the com-
munity interested in the system of justice as a whole, as opposed to just
the police department.
Now, I will make my following statements, realizing very well that
two of the honored gentlemen of this committee are former prosecu-
tors and, indeed, one is a former judge. But I liken the judicial system
to a three-legged milk stool : One leg of that stool is the police ; the
second is the prosecutor; the third is the courts. And I would submit
to this committee that I believe our system has one leg that has dry
rot, and rather seriously.
Chairman Pepper. I take it you are not referring to the police
department ?
Mr. Churchill. I am not, sir. I am speaking primarily about our
courts.
Chairman Pepper. Yes, I know. I was going to ask you about the
prosecuting attorneys and the courts.
Mr. Churchill. I frankly feel that in the area of the prosecution,
there is far too much plea bargaining. I have been a policeman for
awhile and let me hasten to tell you I am not opposed to trading a
pound of bacon for ham. I am very opposed to trading a ham for a
pound of bacon. And that when an individual commits a serious crime
and we find it has been prebargained away for no other purpose than to
serve the expediency of the court, then we are making an error.
I have a 9-year-old daughtet and I love her with all of my heart. But
on occasion I find that my daughter will lie to me. And I have talked
with her and promised her that that is a "spankable" offense, and that
if she does it again, the lying will be punished and she will be given a
hard spanking. Surely, you can understand, as I do, that in raising that
child, if I catch her in another lie and I give her a suspended sentence,
and a third time she lies, I put her on probation, and the fourth time
she lies I say that, well, we didn't get her middle initial right in the
charges that were placed against her, then I would have absolutely no
reason to believe my child would not indeed grow up to be a liar.
150
I think it is the same principle that must appear in our judicial
system today, that if we promise an individual 2 to 5 years for second-
degree burglary, sir, he should receive 2 to 5 years for second-degree
burglary, not 6 months for simple trespassing.
These are the things that we desperately need to look at.
Chairman Pepper. How long is the elapse in Indianapolis between
the time that a charge is made against a defendant and that defendant
is brought to trial ?
Mr. Churchill. Some, sir, go on as long as 2 years. And that indi-
vidual is often out on bond while that time is passing.
Now, I would like to submit a suggestion to you for possible solution
to this problem. My police department and all others in the country are
required to report monthly the crime statistical picture in Indianapolis.
We report that to the justice department, who puts it out in a published
book. And that book merely tells us what crime is occurring. But I
would ask that this committee give some consideration to looking at the
system as a whole.
And if the police department, as merely one leg of that stool, is
required to report accurately the crime which occurs in Indianapolis,
I see nothing wrong with the prosecutor who tries those cases likewise
being required to report to the Justice Department the number of cases
tried, the original charges, the charge on which the individual was
actually tried, and how many times he was found guilty and how many
times released.
I would further like to see the courts of our country be required to
report to the Justice Department how many cases they tried and how
old was each case. What I am saying to you is I believe, honestly, if
the citizens are aware — again, I have no fear of the citizens if they are
aware and know the truth — then, we can accurately look at what is the
police department doing about our judicial system, accurately look at
what are the prosecutors doing about our judicial system, and what are
the courts doing, and put it in a published book.
Chairman Pepper. Would you add to that stool another leg and
call it "Correctional Institutions," or "Penal Institutions" ?
Mr. Churchill. That would make the book complete, sir.
Then I believe an accurate picture of the crime problems in our
country could be evaluated and many of the huge sums of money made
available by the Government to help correct some of these problems
could accurately be placed in the proper area of our system to help
make it work.
It seems hardly proper to me that every month when my crime
stats come out to have the news media to come running to me and say,
"Chief, tell us about crime in this community today."
We are only one part of the system. And I think that as thoroughly
as the public is allowed to view the efforts and the activities of law
enforcement agencies, that by all means they should have the op-
portunity to examine and review the activities of the other parts of
that same system.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Justice Clark used a figure you might find
of interest. He said that the courts might be likened to a system of
water mains through which water was moved from a reservoir into
a city distribution system. No matter how much water you have in the
tank, the reservoir, or the sewer, it can only get to the consumers in
relation to the capacity of the pipes to convey tnat water.
151
So no matter how much of a backlog you police pile up of charged
individuals, the courts, of course, are the pipelines through which their
convictions occur and which progresses the disposition of the case.
So the courts ha\c to be able to handle the cases that you bring in
or you have a stagnation of the sewers, haven't you?
Mr. Churchill. That is very true, sir. And I would say to you
that every police officer in the country, when he takes his job, raises
his right hand and takes an oath of office, and he swears to uphold
the laws of the United States, the State, the community that he serves.
I know that each judge who takes the bench takes that same oath. I am
sorry, I don't believe that too many of them are truly upholding those
laws.
Chairman Pepper. This first week of hearings is devoted to the police
departments of the country, to give them an opportunity for the pres-
entation of the most innovative, imaginative, and effective programs
being carried.
Now, we will follow that with probation and prosecution and the
courts, trial and appellate, and juvenile delinquency, and correctional
institutions. So we are going into all of those facets, all of those legs,
as you might say, of the stool, during these hearings to see what
each part is doing to improve its performance.
Mr. Mann, any questions ?
Mr. Mann. No questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Winn ?
Mr. Winn. Chief, how do you think your "car ride" program
would work in a city like New York or Los Angeles ?
Mr. Churchill. I see no reason why it w^ouldn't work in any com-
munity. It has become so popular — please understand, no advance
appointment need be made — a citizen can walk in off the street, go
to the desk captain, say he wants to ride, sign the release, and we
immediately call in a car and let that individual ride.
Mr. Winn. Do they furnish these rides in the outskirts or suburban
areas of town, or downtown ?
Mr. Churchill. No. sir. All through the city, any part of it.
Mr. Winn. You mentioned morale. How do you judge morale in a
police department?
Mr. Churchill. Morale is a very fluid thing, and I believe each
administrator must acquire a skill for a feel for morale. I have often
said that if the men of my department quit complaining totally, I
would be very worried about what is happening. But a feedback, a
line of communication that exists, both from the top to the man on
the street, and from the man on the street up, is \ntally important,
and you do have a feel for when morale is good. It reflects itself in not
only the quality but the quantity of work the individual officers
will do.
Mr. Winn. You don't have any outside commission or committees
or anything to come in in any way to try to judge it or interview?
Mr. Churchill. No, sir.
Mr. Winn. You don't have any interviews by the press or coordi-
nation with the chief?
Mr. Churchill. We constantly have interviews with the press be-
cause our department has a very open policy with the media. All
disciplinary^ hearings are open to the public and to the media. We
have taken the idea that perhaps in years past the law enforcement
95-158 O — 73 — pt. 1 11
152
agencies would shove a 55-gallon drum under a 9 x 12 rug and try to
convince the public there was nothing there.
In our department, we don't shove a pea under the rug and say there
is nothing there. We are very open with the public and media, and
they have access to our reports and activities and are perfectly free
to interview any of our officers at any time.
Mr. Winn. It was my understanding, Mr. Lynch, there were going
to be some newspapermen up here with Chief Churchill.
Mr. Lynch. They were unable to appear.
Mr. Winn. They are not here ?
Mr. Lynch. No, sir.
Chairman Pepper. We invited them. We are sorry, we understand
they had a large part in encouraging you in the program you have
carried forward. We invited them to appear and they said they would
if they could. We are sorry they can't be here.
Mr. Winn. I am sorry they couldn't be here, too, because it is my
opinion that in too many cities we have the newspaper people of that
city, that should support the police department, spend most of their
time trying to ridicule them and find internal problems and discuss
morale as far as the press is concerned.
Mr. Churchill. As early as 1962, the Indianapolis Star engaged
in a program called Crime Alert.
Mr. Winn. Sponsored by the newspaper ?
Mr. Churchill. Yes, sir; sponsored by the paper. And that has
been a very valued thing in our community, asking people to be alert
and report crime in our community. That program is still very much
in effect today and still on the front page of that paper every day. It
gives the Crime Alert number and urges the citizens to call.
Our second Indianapolis paper, the Indianapolis News, has been
very forceful in helping to form in Indianapolis a Women's Crime
Crusade, which now numbers some 50,000 women. And that is a tre-
mendous force.
Mr. Winn. What do they do ?
Mr. Churchill. Those women have crime committees where two
ladies at a time will go in and watch an entire court procedure for a
month at a time, filling out reports of the activities of the court and
what is happening, and they brought about much change.
For example, prior to the Women's Crime Crusade, a municipal
court was not a court of record. It is now. Prior to the Women's Crime
Crusade a municipal court judge never wore a robe. He does now.
Prior to that time, a municipal court seldom started on time, but that
•was one of the simple little things the Women's Crime Crusade was
watching for. And you may rest assured, even in the municipal court
in Indianapolis, if the court is to start at 9 o'clock, it starts at 9 o'clock.
Mr. Winn. Maybe we ought to have them come to Congress and
start our committees on time.
Captain Greene, you wanted to say something ?
Mr. Greene. You mentioned morale and how do we judge it. I wish
there really were a way you could judge morale. I just wanted to relate
to you a little incident that happened in our particular unit. We had
an elderly couple in one of our murder cases here, 78 and 79 years old,
who returned home and surprised house burglars in their house. The
woman was shot and killed and her husband was seriously wounded.
Along with this same idea, a lot of or police officers have radios such
153
iis these at home. I judge morale of my unit a little bit like this : That
particular night, I had six men working. When I arrived at the scene
of that murder, 23 of my 40 personnel showed up at that scene on
their own time to work.
Mr. Winn. Came out on their own ?
Mr. Greene. Yes, sir.
Mr. Winn. Two more questions that really don't have too much to
do with what you discussed, but we are trying to put all of this to-
gether from the police department standpoint: How do your police
deal with the problems that you probably have with the fantastic
numbers of people that go to Indianapolis for the Speedway race?
INIr. Churchill. Sir, a few years back, when we were to have a State
basketball tournament, or something of that nature, we were always
putting in the paper the amount of vast manpower that we were going
to use and the very strict enforcement rules that we were goin^ to
enforce, and that, if the people didn't follow those rules, certainly
they would be arrested, and so on.
We found, I believe, some truth to exist in the idea that maybe we
were arousing their competitive spirit. So, rather, before an event
of that type, we would put in the paper it was going to be a great
event for our city, that it was going to be a gala occasion, and that
the police would be on hand to assist the public in any way that we
possibly could.
The mere change in attitude and tact of what we advertised, so to
speak, in the papers prior to that event made a tremendous difference.
Soon in Indianapolis, we will be having the 500-mile race. Just prior
to that race, we will have a parade in downtown Indianapolis which
will bring into our city's streets over 250,000 people.
One of the last things I do is to walk the parade route for at least
10 blocks prior to that parade, and I look into the faces of the people
who have assembled themselves for that parade. The last 3 years that
parade has gone without incident. And each time I have walked that
route I have looked into smiling faces, people who came there with
the idea that they were going to enjoy themselves.
Mr. Winn. You kind of missed my point. What do you do about the
people that flock in from out of town ? You draw over 100,000 people
to that race, don't you ?
Mr. Churchill. Oh, yes, sir ; about 350,000.
Mr. Winn. You have a bunch of people who have never been in
Indianapolis before, they have no pride in Indianapolis or the honest
faces, and most of them are there for racing, but there is a certain
percentage that follows the crowd because they want to assault people.
They want to rob them ; they want to trick them. The prostitutes, I
suppose, come into town by outside numbers, whatever it is.
How do you deal with a situation like that when you are bringing
large numbers in, in a 2- or 3-day period ?
Mr. Churchill. To the honest citizen, we endeavor to be a good
host. There is a line beyond which we will not retreat. If it means
putting an individual in jail for misconduct, in jail he will go. The
prostitutes, pickpockets, and so on, we become very active as much as
10 days prior to the race, to get the prostitutes corraled, get them in
jail. We are constantly on the lookout for new faces in our community,
knowing they will be lurable for the Kentucky Derby and soon there-
after come to Indianapolis for the race.
154
Mr. Winn. You have a communications system between Louisville
and Indianapolis?
Mr. Churchill. Indeed, we do; and we work very closely between
the prosecutors and the courts that those individuals who come to our
community at that time, by being travelers and not local residents,
generally find they have relatively high bond placed on them, and in
all probability their case will have a continuance to sometime following
the race.
Mr. Winn. And to follow up on testimony yesterday, do you have
a special rape division ?
Mr. Churchill. No, sir ; we do not.
Mr. Winn. Are you contemplating one?
Mr. Churchill. No. We have some officers that work specifically
on rape cases.
Mr. Winn. Do you have women in that division?
Mr. Churchill. Yes, sir ; we have women in that group. But I per-
sonally do not feel that law enforcement today is treating the rape
problem correctly and I envision the day must come when we must,
in a cooperative way with the police agencies, prosecutors, courts, and
mental health people, begin to attack the problem of rape much
earlier.
Many law enforcement agencies feel that rape is a nonpreventable
crime. I do not agree with that. I believe when in any community
in your city you have a repeater or a prowler, I think this is one red
flag that goes up and says look out.
Second, if in that neighborhood you develop a Peeping Tom, these
runs are normally treated by law enforcement agencies as nuisance
runs. They often will tell the lady, "look, if you keep your blind
pulled down, they guy won't look." Then you find developed in that
neighborhood a larceny problem, where an individual steals women's
laundry off the clothesline.
Often, the law enforcement agencies treat that as a simple larceny —
how much did the clothing cost — when in truth that should be the
third red flag waving, "hey, look out." Then the guy moves on to
exposing himself to young children, something of this nature. And
we never really become aggressive when it comes to a prowler, a
Peeping Tom, of having a concerted effort on the part of the police
department to attack the problem at that level, with a special prosecu-
tor who is well versed in prosecuting sex cases, with mental health
people who will know very well this problem is developing; but get
it now, not after the serious offense of rape has been committed and
then try to work with the problem.
Mr. Winn. We are doing a lousy job of convicting rapists after
we catch them.
Mr. Churchill. Indeed we do, sir; and most of them are found
to be mentally incompetent and they are sent to a mental hospital
and the mental hospital often has an open-door policy where they
can walk out on the street any time.
Mr. Winn. You think our laws are extremely off base as far as
rape is concerned?
Mr. Churchill. I think they need very careful examination. But
I would believe, too, that we need to build into the judicial sj^stem
some mental health people who will accept the idea that an individual
must have assistance in the courts, and I believe the judge should have
155
the latitude to send the person to some mental health prganization
who can help him.
Mr. Winn. Do you have a psychiatrist on your staiff?
Mr. Churchill. Xo. sir; I do not.
Mr. Winn. You don't ?
Mr. Churchill. Xo. I might tell you. a year ago I applied to LEAA
lor a grant, just along the very lines I am talking about now, to com-
bat the problem of rape, and they were not interested because the inci-
dence figure of rape was not high enough to warrant a grant. But, in
my opinion, the problem of rape is one that is increasing all over the
country.
It is my opinion that rape is a preventable crime, but that we are
attacking it far too late in the picture. We should be getting after it
much sooner.
Mr. Winn. In Washington, D.C., for instance, rape is about on
page 26 of the local newspapers, because the first 2 or 3 are all filled
with the AVatergate.
Thank you.
Mr. R ANGEL. Chief, I have been extremely interested in your testi-
mony today. Can you briefly tell the committee what you were in-
volved in prior to becoming chief of police?
Mr. Churchill. I joined the police department in May of 1957,
after having successfully operated my own business for a number of
years. I didn't come to the police department until I was 32 years old.
I was a patrolman, out on the street, for 5 years. Then I transferred
to the detective division, where I worked burglary and larceny cases.
Contrary to what the captain says about robbery and homicide, I
think burglary is the toughest case you can investigate anjrwhere.
My background is in education, in secondary education. I had some
feeling of wanting to be a teacher. After I had the privilege to at-
tend the Xational FBI Academy, I went back to my department as a
lieutenant in the training division. Indianapolis law makes it possi-
ble for any individual in the department who holds the permanent
rank of lieutenant to be considered for the position of chief.
And in 1967, Mr. Richard Lugar was elected our mayor and in
February of 1968 he selected me as his chief and I have been there
since.
Mr. Rangel. Thank you very much.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Do you have county wide jurisdiction?
Mr. Churchill. Xo, sir ; I do not.
Mr. Keating. Even though the city extends out into a metropolitan
area ?
Mr. Churchill. Yes, sir. We are involved in what is known across
the country as Unigov, where the council is a joint city /county coun-
cil, and the mayor of Indianapolis is indeed the mayor of all Marion
County. But that law provides that the new Municipal Police Depart-
ment of Indianapolis w-ill ultimately become the enforcement body
for all of the county and that the sheriff's department will have specific
assignments of operating the jail, process serving, things of that
nature.
But the law provides that this cannot come about until the individual
councilmen are satisfied that the municipal police department is both
1S6
adequately prepared and able to assume new portions of jurisdiction.
Then, and only then, will the people who live in that jurisdiction be
placed on the tax rolls for it.
So I think the law provides a very equitable way for our depart-
ment to expand and to meet its obligations. At the same time, it is
equitable and orderly as far as the citizenry is concerned, because they
are not paying for a service until they receive it.
Mr. KJEATiNG. How many more men will you need for that total
county patrol? You have 1,100 now. How many additional men would
you need ?
Mr. Churchill. It is difficult to say because we have not been able
to accurately assess the crime problem throughout the rest of the
county, plus the fact the suburbs and county area are the areas of
greatest increase in population. But I feel that, as you see, one area
is put on the tax rolls, then new revenue is made available to us so we
can in a step-by-step orderly progression assume our obligations and
have proper command.
Mr. Keating. I think it takes time to train a police officer and if you
need 300 men, and it takes a couple of years or 3 years, or whatever,
to about that much increment in the force — how many police officers
do you have per thousand population now ?
Mr. Churchill. The rate per 1,000 population is 1.7.
Mr. Keating. That is pretty low, isn't it ?
Mr. Churchill. Yes, sir.
Mr. Keating. I think someone mentioned that here in Washington
we have 6.5 per thousand.
Mr. Churchill. If I had that many police in Indianapolis, I would
consider myself overly fortunate.
Mr. Keating. The involvement that you talked about in public
affairs by police and participation by listening in on the radio, partici-
pation in riding in the cars and all of that, helps to make more people
willing to testify, more people willing to contact you about suspicious
persons. Do you find that it is a helpful involvement, or do you find
sometimes you get a lot of nuisance calls ?
Mr. Churchill. No. Surprisingly, we have very few nuisance calls.
Most of the information we receive is indeed very helpful. A recent
experience where we had a shooting on the east side of the city, the
uniformed officer put out a partial description of the vehicle and the
direction it was traveling. And just within a few minutes a man owning
a filling station called us and said he had heard the broadcast and ran
out on his lot to watch and get us the full license number, the make and
model of the car, and which direction it turned, which made possible an
apprehension of the individual within a few minutes.
I might tell you that I plan very soon now on opening our classrooms
in the school in the police department to any civic organization or
group which wants to hold meetings. Our classrooms are not used in
the evenings and I want to make those meeting spaces available to
different civic organizations within our city, if they will but come, let
us take them on a tour of the building prior to their meeting, because
we are anxious they come to see us and we are anxious for them to see
what our department is doing.
Mr. Keating. Captain, I think you said you solved every homicide
that has occurred within your jurisdiction within the last year. Is that
correct ?
157
Mr. Greene. Yes, sir. Knock on wood — we are now riding into 15
months.
Mr. Keating. Have you found that one of the principal elements m
helping in the solution of these crimes has been involvement and
assistance of your citizens, of your lay people ?
Mr. G'REENE. Very definitely.
Mr. Keating. So that the work that the chief has done in this regard
in involving the citizenry has been of assistance to you in developing
a successful investigation ?
Mr. Greene. It certainly has. And as you briefly mentioned, I think
it has brought people forward now to where they know that the police
cannot be a one-way street. It has to be two ways. And I found that
people now are coming forward more and are willing to testify more
than what they have in the past.
I think this is directly responsible for the citizens involvement in
Indianapolis.
Mr. Iveating. Chief, I would like to make a suggestion and I don't
know how valid it really is. But I like your idea of the compilation
of the statistics in order to let the public know what is happening,
whether persons have been convicted of the crime for which they have
been charged, whether it was valid to charge them from the begmning
or whether it should have been a lesser charge, or whatever the situa-
tion is, but I have a little concern about one aspect of it and I think
you may run into it.
You seem to indicate you wanted the courts to report to the Justice
Department. I am not sure that will he valid. I think they should have
some input into the compilation of statistics, but I would not like to
see courts required to report to the prosecutor, in effect. I think I
would like to see them operate through their own system of reporting
and having some agency coordinating all of these.
I like the goal, but I am not sure I would want to place the judiciary
in the position of having to report to Justice. I think it is an inde-
pendent function of our Government. I think I would like to keep it
separate. I understand what you are trying to do and I agree with
that objective, but I would like the means to it. I don't have any
constructive suggestion to you but the thought occurred to me at the
time.
Mr. Churchill. I can well envision, to get the courts to report this
kind of thing would be extremely difficult.
Mr. Keating. But I think the reporting should be done now.
Mr. Churchill. I do, too.
Mr. ICeating. And I do think all of this should be in some computer
center so that you can press a button and get the results pretty quickly
and not get bound up in paperwork. But that is for some genius in
that area to figure out.
One part of the equation that you talk about that I have always felt
contributed to the difficulties the law enforcement officer has, and I
think the public has as a result, is the prosecutor's role in that equa-
tion, whether or not they have adequate training, whether they have
enough time to prepare their case at all levels, whether they have had
time, even in the misdemeanors, to have enough advance information
to do the job necessary to present a case for conviction. I have been
concerned about that aspect of the equation very much through the
years. Do you have any comments on that?
158
Mr. Churchill. Yes. There is adequate reason for concern, because
I am satisfied, that that is one of the underlying causes for so much
of the plea bargaining. That and the cases dragging on for so long,
the loss of witnesses, et cetera, puts a young prosecutor who perhaps
has to prepare for as many as 12 trials a day, and I can see an extreme
hardship in his being able to properly prosecute a case and thus the
case is plea-bargained away.
It sounds a little bit harsh, but I see, too, the problem arising in
the plea bargaining for the expediency of the court, cases that should
be open and shut, of a burglar apprehended right inside of a place,
and so on, but just to make it quick to get through the courts we reduce
it from second degree to third degree and give him 6 months out on the
farm, which, you see, is really not 6 months, it is 4 months and 17 days.
I think the public should know the thing went from 2-to-5 years to
6 months. I think the public should know that 6 months is not 6 months,
it is 4 months and 17 days.
We should be honest with the public. They should know that life is
not life. That 20 years is not 20 years. We need to level with them and
let them know. Because, once they know, then they are more able to
understand and appreciate the problems the judicial system is experi-
encing today.
Mr. Lynch. Chief, you said you were required to report uniform
crime data. Is that the case or not the case, that most police agencies
report that to the FBI on a voluntary basis ?
Mr. Churchill. I am sure it is a voluntary basis. I am sure my city
would be looked at with some displeasure if we did not do it.
Mr. Lynch. In several weeks we will be hearing testimony from a
county judicial prosecutorial system located not far from Washing-
ton. They have devised a computer system which enables them to tell
exactly how cases are being processed, and what judges are doing what
with cases. That information has routinely been turned over to news-
papers. I would think the committee would be delighted to send you a
letter informing you about it.
It may be. something you folks in Indianapolis would like to look
into. They think this has had marvelous results and it has helped
change the system and the attitudes of some people working in the
system.
Mr. Churchill. I appreciate that information.
Mr. Keating. Chief, I have always felt that delay in trial and pun-
ishment is one of the greatest contributions to proliferation of crime,
or, rather, to put it a different way, it is not the deterrent that it could
bo. I think the primary responsibility in seeing the cases are tried
rests with the court.
I am sure that the defense counsel, as you know, has a lot of cases
m other courtrooms and doesn't get to that one, and the prosecutor,
by the same token, has a number of cases or you can't get a jury on a
given day. But the primary responsibility rests with the court because
the court is the one that has the oversight.
Now, it seems to me that if we could get every criminal — and there
will be an exception because of injury or something — tried and ac-
quitted or convicted within 60 days of the offense, and the punishment
flows quickly thereafter, that this would be more meaningful not only
to the offender, but to the victims, to the public, and to the law en-
forcement arm generally; that this then would be a greater deter-
159
rent to our crime problem in the country today. Do you agree with
that concept?
Mr. Churchill. Mr. Keating, if you were my Congressman, you
would get my vote, 100 percent. I think this committee should be aware,
however, that much of the delay in the trial of prisoners is not be-
cause of the police, not because of the court; it is because of the defend-
ant himself, who continues to take advantage of all of the delay.
Mr. Keating. I think experience shows that there are limited de-
fense counsels and they don't want to let any cases go to any other
attorney and they are required to be in a number of different court-
rooms and sometimes in different systems, the federal system or some
other system. So they ask for many continuances.
Mr. WixN. Would the gentleman yield ?
Mr. Keating. Yes.
Mr. Winn. Doesn't history also show the longer you drag the case
out, the better, easier verdict you get in behalf of the defendant?
Mr. Keating. I think the difficulty is, what happens is that the wit-
nesses, having lost their wages three or four or five or six times, are
disinclined to come back. And if they ever witness a crime again,
they won't come back ; they won't tell anybody about it. You also find it
runs up the cost of operating the police department, whether you give
policemen court time, or compensatory time, or whether you give them
wages, you are running the cost of the law enforcement arm up. I
don't want to cast dispersion, but he may be a little hesitant the next
time.
But the victim of the crime has suffered already and if he has got to
keep coming back and losing more time, he is not going to want to come
back.
In this manner, of course, your recall of facts and events becomes
more dim with time. So it becomes more difficult to prosecute a case
thereafter.
Mr. Churchill. I appreciate your giving some time and thought
and concern to the victim. Far too long it has been with the perpetra-
tor. What you say is so vitally true because in my judgment it causes
the victim to lose faith in the system. He just totally loses faith. The
system must protect him. That is our first obligation : To protect the
lives and property of the people. And we can't do it if the people as
a whole lose faith in the system.
Mr. Keating. Speedy trials have a way of lessening the importance
of bail, as it gets involved in so many other things, but it is only part
of it because the appeal process, the appellate process, is so long and
drawn out that it, too, must be attacked. And the time between arrest
and trial has to be shortened to give finality to the case. There are
several approaches to that.
Mr. Churchill. Yes; but, Mr. Keating, you see while this sounds —
as we discussed here, it sounds — to be a complicated thing, it is not
really because most of what you are discussing here can be accom-
plished by a simple rule of court, if the judges would do it.
Mr. Keating. That is why I said the primary responsibility rests
with the court, because it is a matter of controlling unit behavior of
those elements coming before him to fill out this equation.
I would love to get into the subject of rape and the difficulties I see
in that, but I think the committee chairman wants to get on.
Thank you very much, Chief.
160
Mr. Churchill. Thank you.
Chairman Pepper. Chief Churchill, Captain Greene, the committee
wishes in the warmest way to thank you both for the valuable con-
tribution you made to our efforts here. I am especially grateful to you
for this police radio. I shall listen with interest, if not pleasure, to
the crime I hear in the District.
Mr. Churchill. Thank you.
Mr. Winn. I would like to point out one thing. Several members
of the committee have ridden police cars from time to time, just to
find out what really is going on.
Mr. Rangel. You mean as defendants ?
Mr. Keating. I would suggest if the chairman would hear of any
of us being picked up on that radio, he might come and bail us out.
Chairman Pepper. Without objection, a part of the folder pre-
sented by Chief Churchill from Indianapolis will be inserted in the
record.
[Mr. Churchill's prepared testimony, plus numerous pieces of litera-
ture available from the Indianapolis Police Department, follows:]
Testimony of Indianapolis Police Department, Submitted by Winston L.
Churchill, Chief
background information on indianapolis philosophy, and the people who
guide her
If Indianapolis has had any national reputation at all, it was one of associa-
tion with the internationally known 500 Mile Race, Indianapolis has been
traditionally a conservative city. Little in the way of agressive new thinking
was taking place. The city was becoming segregated. Segregated in that not
only were Blacks and Whites moving toward segregation, but Indianaiwlis
itself was in the process of segregating itself from the other major cities of
America.
As is true of such situations, many detrimental things began to happen. The
more affluent moved out of the decaying inner-city to the suburbs, just outside
the city Corporate Limits. The most precious resource on any community was
becoming depleted as the youth began to leave for cities offering more prom-
ising futures. Cities which had reputations for forward thinking, opportunity,
and glamour.
As the suburban area began to increase in population and retail merchandis-
ing outlets, services to the suburban areas had to be increased. County and
Township Government became overburdened, and their services began to over-
lap. Duplication of services left many without any at all. The tax base of the
inner-city was slowly becoming depleted. A cancer of inner-city decay began
to grow as homes and places of business were abandoned. Services to the inner-
city merchants and residents began to suffer. Streets were becoming riddled
with chuckholes, and garbage and trash was not being regularly removed.
Police and Fire Services started to suffer. Aging equipment wasn't being re-
placed, and it was an open secret that promotions within the Police and Fire
Departments could be bought !
The citizens of Indianapolis lost confidence in their government, and in their
Police Department.
This was the situation in the mid 1960's.
In November of 1967 the people of Indianapolis changed the Party in power
in city government.
A young bus^inessman with a reputation for aggressive and innovative think-
ing was elected Mayor of the City of Indianapolis.
In January of 1968. Richard Green Lugar, (pronounced like the gun), the
new Mayor moved into the gleaming 25th floor oflBces of the Mayor high atop the
City-County Building — the only large new structure to be erected in Indianapo-
lis in many a year. From this vantage point he could observe a city in decay.
Lugar was true to his word, change was indeed in the wind. Out went tradi-
tional thinking which had held Indianapolis back for so many years, and the
public-be-damned attitude of the civil servants. Lugar came into office with a
161
plan of action which he proceeded to place into effect. He set his government
up along the lines of a corporation structure, with himself as President and Chair-
man of the Board. And why not? If it would work well in the business community,
it ought to work well in government.
Lugar set up his services to the community under appointed Department Heads
who, could and would, be fired if they did not produce.
When it came to the Police Department, Lugar let it be known that no advance
deals had been made with respect to who would be the next Chief of Police. In
itself a departure from politics as usual. He invited those who were interested in
the job to apply — but first they must meet his criteria. No outsiders were inter-
viewed. Lugar wanted a man who had been on the Department, and had proven
himself capable of leadership, both within the Department and in the community.
Many were interviewed. All were asked to put into writing the Department as
they saw it. what they would change, and their recommendations for the future
of the Department.
Lugar was. and is, a man of advocacy. He surrounded himself with like minded
men — each an advocate. His new Chief of Police was to be no exception.
Lugar's choice was Winston Churchill. Churchill was a man who had risen
rapidly through the ranks to the rank of Lieutenant . . . and had come by it
honestly through hard work. He was a nimble thinker, a man of experience, it
would be hard to pull the Departmental wool over his eyes. Lugar liked the
recommendations of his new Chief, and told him to move ahead — but to remain
in close contact witli the Mayor.
Churchill was acutely aware of the alienation of the community from the
Police. If he was to succeed and survive as Chief he would have to recapture the
confidence of the people in their Police Department.
How do you reverse years of distrust and outright hostility?
You begin by letting it be known that each policeman was now on his own
merits. If he got into trouble it would no longer be swept imder the rug. He
would face a disciplinary hearing before his Chief, and that hearing was going
to be open to the public and the news media. Supervisory oflScers. were also to
be held similarly responsible for the performance of the oflicers under their
command. And woe be to the man who was surly or disrespectful to a citizen.
Churchill hand picked his Deputy Chiefs. Each was carefully chosen for
ability and command leadership. Churchill's philosophy closely paralleled the
Lugar concept that if you don't produce, you were fired.
In the early months the new chief and his deputy chiefs set out to reverse the
trend. Something that couldn't happen overnight.
Churchill proved a most able public speaker — quick on his feet. He began
accepting speaking engagements whenever possible. He took his story to the
community. Even today, almost five years later, he seldom has a day without
some sort of public speaking engagement. Realizing the value of this approach,
Churchill encouraged his Deputy Chiefs and Branch Commanders to do like-
wise . . . and gradually the story of change in the Indianapolis Police Depart-
ment began to be told.
New police began to evolve, with the Mayor and his Chief in close communi-
cation. Ever so slowly the community began to react in a positive way toward
their police. A women's organization was formed to assist in carrying the message.
The Women's Cru.sade Against Crime was born. The women got into the spirit
. . . they rode in patrol cars . . . got to see first hand the life and problems of
the policeman. They raised funds to enable the Department to publish helpful
booklets on a wide range of subjects. Everything from how to protect yourself
and your home to how to describe a subject in police terminology. Citizens were
openly encouraged to listen to the local police radio broadcasts. If they didn't
understand the police codes, Churchill mailed out code cards to help them under-
stand. (To date some 20,000 code cards have been mailed out and or given out
since the first of the year).
The local news media perceived the changes in the Department and made
editorial comment in favor of the changes. No longer was it the thing to do to
deride the police. Now they were boosting the projects, and the programs of the
Department. Encouraged by this the Chief and the Mayor began plans for
groundbreaking the pathfinding in Law Enforcement.
Some of the successful programs to come from this new thinking have been :
The Indianapolis Take Home Patrol Car Plan. Under the plan the men of the
Operations Division and the TraflBc Division were each assigned a car which was
to be in their care alone. They were to use it on and off duty. Take care of it,
and be on call even when off duty. This Plan has saved the taxpayers of Indian-
162
apolis some $500,000 a year. Crime has gone down and the people are seeing more
police cars on the street 24 hours a day, every day of the year.
The Citizen Observer Program. Under this program, citizens of legal age are
invited to ride with a patrolman for a few hours of his duty time. To date since
this was begun in 1968 some 5,500+ citizens have ridden in Patrol Cars. Young
people are frequently the most changed following such an experience. They begin
openly hostile to the patrolman, and almost without exception end the evening as
a friend. The most frequent comment from all riders is something like ... "I
wouldn't have your job for a million dollars !"
A public affairs section was formed to work with P.T.A.'s and P.T.O.'s
Scouting, Neighborhood Organizations and School Principals. The OflBcer Friend-
ly Program was begun to involve the policeman in the kindergarten and lower
grades of all Indianapolis Schools. Eventually funding was provided by the Sears
Foundation.
The Indianapolis Police Department now makes as many public speaking
engagements as possible. This year in the continuing effort to take the story
to the public, they designed and produced an exhibit covering police work,
history, narcotics and dangerous drugs, a working patrol car, two motorcycles,
and many many items of a curious nature too numerous to mention here. Four
officers from the Department travel with this exhibit, one a policewoman, to
answer questions, and to promote the police community relations situation. To
date the exhibit has made two public appearances, and has been enjoyed by well
over 20,000 of the citizens of the city.
The response of the average citizen has been most heartening. The image of
the policeman in Indianapolis has improved, and with it the policeman's self
esteem. Children once again look upon him as a friend and no longer fear him.
Citizen cooperation with police is reaching an all time high. Never before has
the Department so enjoyed the relationship with the people it now has.
The situation of the 1960's has been reversed. Crime has gone Down ! The
people have helped us do it.
Indianapolis has enjoyed 26 straight months of crime reduction. A total re-
duction of 26% over the past two year.s. The Homicide Branch cleared 100%
of the murders and killings assigned to it this past year ... a record not
achieved by any large city in recent memory.
The street crime and home burglary situation is on the decline. Streets in
Indianapolis are getting safer at night with each passing week. Nightlife is
returning !
163
XI
E
i +
! +
:+
to (^ to ^" tn i-H 00 •— ' <-D ^-1 r^ ^ c^ csi oo CT) oo (^
'+~+?
I I CO r- r^ CM csi CM ^J g> cr> oo
i-T I I od"— '"cocsTfO
r^
^
CO
00
—H
o
<£t '>
_;
._;
CO
oo
^^ 1
+
CM
1
+
+
I
1
1 1
•— •«— •cMtD^t-'— »a>oor^oo.— 'OOcor^r^tn
to iCM 1 (X?«— «C3cocNJr-oocM'!rroCT»'-<
' +
J _L."— ' .i_g>CM
-a- 00 CM — «j- oo
+
+ :+
+
+
sincsocMPOtDcocMU^oaito^d^-^
3 iCMCMLfioor»».cMO^J"OOOr»-rO'— »oo
' "j_L o^a-CMcocococoujroco
CM ~r -^ "r o ^ 00 CM irT "T
r
o
a.
<
<
o
z
UJ
0£
o
(^ iCsl lOO
If) ir-I i.^
7 i' i7
CM
CM
1
+ is
1+
+
CO I
to CO
CD CM
"+
E
LOCMO^unCM.— lO^O^COtDtDlTJ^TOOO
y£) ,-H oi I coesjLncMLn icmcmcou^co*— *
I I «— ' I to CM oo n^oi oor-* coot£>
^- 1
r'TifJ"'-*""
-+
r-
o
00
t— 1
^
^
IT)
CM
C5
o
If)
in
^
OO
CO
00
\n
r^
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
t~.0)«T'«rr-.poo--ioooooo^2r;20
r~ -- i/. csi « ^oo g UJ JO o ^ oo <; p 5
+
+
10 C)
ooco
CM CM
o
(Q W oc •-
■:= « a* "
I »_ >>^
i_ to i_
01 V
' Q. to
<D tj >N o (O O t— O
35o£ S£iS£
™ aj ™ ™
c c _ c
OJ — <J —
a
164
CRIME ALEBT
Indianapolis Crime Alert was organized February 17, 196f7, to give citizens
an opportunity to work with the police in stopping crime.
The Indianapolis Police Department and the Indianapolis Star cooperated
in organizing the program which enables citizens to call an emergency telephone
number, 633-2811, to report crimes in progress or suspicious activities.
The emergency number is published each day on the front page of the Indian-
apolis Star and the Indianapolis News.
As soon as a police dispatcher receives a crime alert call and is given the
emergency information, he dispatches police cars to the scene.
Many times in the six years of the program's existence arrests at the scene
of a crime have been attributed directly to Crime Alert calls by alert citizens.
When the program was unveiled at a meeting of business, civic and law en-
forcement leaders, hundred thousand copies of Crime Alert pamphlets supplied
by the Indianapolis Star were distributed.
Pamphlets and billfold size cards gave information on "How to Describe a
Suspect".
Requests for the information flooded the Indianapolis Police Department and
The Indianapolis Star from individuals, businesses, civic organizations, schools
and churches.
Millions of cards and pamphlets since have been distributed by the Police
Department.
Hundreds of two-way radio-equipped vehicles operated by utilities joined in
24-hour Crime Alert participation.
Also, a special Crime Alert post office box was set up in 1967 so persons with
detailed information on crime that did not require immediate police action
could write it down and mail it to the police.
Tips by mail to Crime Alert have resulted in solution of many crimes.
Response to Crime Alert was termed "unbelievable" by a policewoman who
is one of several police personnel who have manned telephones since Crime Alert
began.
"I believe Crime Alert has drawn the public and police into a closer relation-
ship," she observed of the program.
She uQted that a majority of persons ''take Crime Alert very seriously . . .
only a few crank calls".
Inquiries have been received from many cities and newspapers of the tech-
nique of Crime Alert.
As a result, similar programs have been inaugurated throughout the Nation.
J. Edgar Hoover lauded the program soon after it was launched and offered
suggestions to increase its effectiveness.
A feature of the program is that tipsters are not required to identify
themselves.
165
HOW TO
DESCRIBE
A SUSPECT
YOU
to
for
. n pe^s^ .. safe
,«w abld'"9/that '^ 'you
a '^^ -,muni*y «w ones'
live '" , and '" .gcted-'
as
nt yO"^ '""Mlvity
of Cri""'"'
infor""
may
.dd^esi
ct be <^^'"'
''^'^.etter to-
a
-'"Ss-i^i?"*
ISSUED BY
INDIANAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT
HELP THE POLICE
HELP YOU
166
OBSERVE AND R EM EM B ER
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
1. SEX
2. COLOR
3. AGE
4. HEIGHT
5. WEJGHT
6. BUILD
7^ HAIR
S. EYES
9. COMPLEXION
10. PECULIARITIES
WMTB - NBORO - OUBNTAL - RJEKTOUCAN - MBXICAN
NATI OHAL OM Ca N WHBKB FCGSBLB .
AmOOaMATB (u clow u poMUito>
I N COMPAM SON WI TH PI XKD OVBCT OP KNOWN
HEIOHTOKSBU'.
AnHUUMATBLY (u dOM ■■ poMiU*)
AmtOXIMATBLY (w elom — pMsUiia)
HUBCY • SUM - THN - HBAVY - UOKT - UUSCUIJUt
COLOR - TBXTUKB - STYU - OROOM - LBNOTH - Cl/T '
ARTTFiaAL
COLOR - SHAn - LASHES - HtOWS - SLANT -
CLSAR OR BLOOD SHOT
COLOR - PORBS - POT MARKS - ACNB - RAZOR RASH - BUMPS -
CLBAN SHAVEN UNSHAVEN - 4 O'CLOCK SHADOW
MARKS - SCARS - DBPORMmBS - ARITFCIAL LIMBS - MUSTACHE
OOTTBB - BBARD - WIOS - TOUPEES - MANICURE - MAKE UP
VaCBCpRck-tOM -ztp -U4>-hl«k-lo«)
SPEECH ( mU adBcaud - (lof - accot* • UUnnu)
CLOTHING DESCRIPTION
1. HAT
2. SHIRT
3. COATS
4. TROUSERS
5. SOCKS
6. SHOES
7. ACCESSORIES
«. JEWELRY
9. GENERAL
APPEARANCE
10. ODDITIES
COLOR - nYLB - BLOCK
CAP - PBDORA - HOOD - BTC.
ORNAMENTS - PBATHERS
COLOR - OBSHJN - SLEEVES - COLLAR STYLE
SUrr - TOP - OVERCOAT
BinXONS
COLOR - STYLE ( REO. - IVY - COKHNENTAL )
CUPPED • CUPPLBSS
COLOR - OBSraN - TYPB
COLOR - STTLB - DESON
SWEATER - JACKET - SCARPS - OLOVBS
NBCKHB
RINGS - WATCHES • BtACBLSTS
TI E CLASPS-
NEAT - CLEAN - WELL OROOMBO - IXRTY
SLOPPY -ETC.
CLOTTHINOTOO LARGE OR TOO SMALL
ODD COLORS - PATCHWORK -
WEAPONS
VEHICLES
1. REVOLVER
1. MAKE
1. nSTOL
2. MODBL
S. SHOTOUN
i. TYPE
4. RIPLB
4. COLOR
S. KNIPB
1. OOOITIBS
«. OTHER
t.
HELP THE POLICE
HELP YOU
167
95-158 0—73 — pt. 1-
-12
168
I Jo
no
lU
u
Ul
UJ
Ul
at
u
lU
lU
>-
Ul
(0
'(0
Jo
10 ^
{%M,i (®
l#
(§'h[^
u
at
0.
><
UJ
i «
It'iVti Id)
(i
<
"^ IS
o
(®1
Ul
9
a
l®i
(Oi
^0>
^0;
9
(0'
V05
(Oi
\ri
(n
u
/of
{(,:
UJ
UJ
o
X
UJ
UJ
u
<
H
It
O
>-
w
o
2
9
5
W
1
<
M
O
169
POLICE
EMERGENCY
633-2811
CHECK LIST
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
1. SEX
2 COLOR.
3 ACE _
6. BUILD
7. HAIR .
8. EYES
4. HEIGHT ,
9. COMPLEXION
5. WEIGHT
10. PECULIARITIES ^
CLOTHING DESCRIPTION
1. HAT
6. SHOES
2. SHIRT
7. ACCESSORIES
3. COAT
S. JEWELRY
4. TROUSERS
9. GEN. APPEARANCE
S. SOCKS
10. ODDITIES
FACIAL DESCRIPTION
1. SHAPE
6. NOSE & EARS.
2. HAIR & LINE
7. LIPS & MOUTH
3. FOREHEAD
8. CHIN & NECK
4. EYES & BROWS
9. AGE LINES & WRINKLES
S. CHEEKS & JAW
10. EXPRESSION
KEEP THIS BOOKLET AND REFER TO IT IN THE
EVENT YOU HAVE TO DESCRIBE A SUSPECT.
170
A MESSAGE FROM
THE CHIEF
YOUR POLICE DEPARTMENT
GOES INTO ACTION
when you promptly dial 633—2811 and
give the Police Dispatcher the following
information.
0 Whats Happened?... Happening?
w Address or Location of the incident.
0 Description of Scene and number of
persons involved — Age — Height
Weight — Complexion — Clothing etc.
W Method and Direction of travel — License
Number — Color and Make of any cars
used.
Remember, you saw or heard it happen...
Fulfull your Civic Responsibility and
help us apprehend the Criminal.
Chief of Police
INDIANAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT
171
Teen-agers
want to know , . .
WHAT IS THE LAW?
Published by the Youth Division of
The Anti-Crime Crusade
• sponsored by
The Indianapolis News
307 North Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
Telephone: 633-9060
172
Why This Booklet?
This booklet has been edited by teen-agers, in
cooperation with Indianapolis and Marion County law
enforcement officials.
The purpose of the book is to provide better under-
standing of the laws which affect young people and to
emphasize the importance of law enforcement and
civic responsibility.
Again and again, youths in the court room tell the
judge, "But I didn't know I was breaking a law."
"I didn't know it was an offense to be truant . . .
"I didn't know it was an offense to run away . . .
"I didn't know it was an offense to swear . . .
173
This booklet points out that there are laws -not
"bad" laws and "good" laws, but laws. Personal re-
sponsibility and respect for the law are necessary in
order that millions of people can live together
harmoniously.
Many young people have asked for the information
in this booklet. Judges, the Marion County Prosecutor,
the Indianapolis Police Department, the Marion County
Sheriffs Office, and the National Citizens Council on
Crime and Delinquency have endorsed the publication.
We believe the booklet will be valuable to young
people and to their parents.
For extra copies and other information, write:
Youth Division,
The Anti-Crime Crusade
The Indianapolis News
307 N. Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
174
The Youth Division of the Anti-Crime Crusade
The Youth Division is one of 14 areas of work in
the Indianapolis Anti-Crime Crusade. Thirty women
launched the Crusade in March, 1962. There are now
more than 50,000 volunteers who tackle the widest
possible field of crime prevention. They have been
able to get more than 2,000 dropouts back in school
without tax funds. They are aware that crime costs as
much as national defense; they are concerned with the
effect it has on people -the fear of a dark street, the
unwillingness to trust a stranger, the dread of a knock
at the door.
The Youth Division is open to high school and
junior high school youths throughout Indianapolis and
Marion County. Last year teen-agers in the Crusade
edited a booklet called, "Directory for Teen-Age Volun-
teers."
Copies of this and the following booklets are avail-
able by writing to the address on the preceding page:
selt-protection, how to get dropouts back in school, how
to light up a city, court watching, church volunteer
service.
Who Is A Juvenile?
Under Indiana law, a juvenile is any boy or girl
under the full age of 18 years. If you are arrested, you
will be charged with being a delinquent child by virtue
of . . . and then the crime with which you are charged
will be spelled out.
175
As a juvenile, you are subject to all Indiana laws
defining crime, and any act that would be a crime for
an. adult is also a crime for you. You will normally be
tried in juvenile court, unless you commit a crime for
which the penalty is death or life imprisonment. Crimes
in this hideous category are treason, murder, and being
an habitual criminal. You may, however, be tried in
an adult court for traffic offenses and for any violation
of the law which is so serious that the juvenile court
judge decides you deserve to be tried as an adult.
176
Let's Define "Habitual"
Now, before we begin the recitation of the law, let
us understand one word that will be used again and
again. "Habitually" as used in Indiana law and in-
terpreted by Indiana courts means three times. For
example, it is a crime for a child to be habitually dis-
obedient, to be ungovernable or incorrigible, to be
habitually beyond the control of his parents or guardian.
Sometime when your mother says, "If you do that one
more time, I'll call the police," you might remember
that she can, and some parents do simply turn their
children over to juvenile court to be handled as the
court sees fit.
Truancy, Running Away from Home
Being habitually truant (remember, three times)
is a crime. When the school attendance officer or your
home room teacher or the principal calls home to
find out if you're really sick, she's not being nosy;
she's enforcing the law.
It is a crime to run away from home -habitually,
that is. The law says you may not leave home without
just cause and without the consent of your parents,
guardian, or other custodian. Juvenile courts have had
cases of frighteningly young children who run away.
Don't. Home's a pretty good place to be able to come
back to.
177
Employment Restrictions
There are occupations, too, which are in violation
of the law for juveniles. Your school guidance counselor
will be able to help you with this one. There are limita-
tions on the hours you can work, the kind of machinery
you can operate, the places you can work.
Choose Associates Carefully
Associating with immoral or vicious persons is also
against Indiana law. That Halloween stunt you watched
your friend pull off may land you in jail for associating
with the wrong kind of person. You are free to choose
the persons with whom you spend your time. Choose
carefully; they may change your life.
L^;>V~.
What's Off Limits
Places whose existence is forbidden by law are
off-limits to juveniles as well as adults. There's a special
section in the juvenile law that says you can't go into
after-hours taverns and the like. You may think it
sounds like fun; but what about that permanent record
you'll have to carry?
178
Begging, receiving or gathering alms is officially
frowned upon. No reputable organization needs to have
children on street corners pleading with passersby for
gifts or donations.
Two companion parts of the juvenile law are mostly
for your safety. They make it illegal for you to be found
about railroad tracks or yards, to jump on or off trains,
or to enter a car or engine without lawful authority.
The companion section for trucks forbids you to be
found in or about truck terminals, including the freight
docks and garages, or to enter a truck or trailer without
lawful authority.
Well Chosen Friends -Important to Youths
179 .
Vile Language, Liquor
Using intoxicating liquor as a beverage or using
narcotics without the direction of a doctor should have
been so thoroughly discussed by now that you'd never
consider doing either. Harmful habits, they are; death
traps they frequently become.
Associating with persons you know to be thieves or
maliciously vicious can also cost you a trip to the police
.station. America's legal system has always held the
associates of a criminal to be equally responsible for
the criminal's acts. You cannot run around with a person
who wilfully violates the law without eventually violat-
ing the law yourself. Again, you are free to choose the
the people with whom you spend your time.
The other side of the coin makes you responsible
if you wilfully, deliberately harm someone else; the
statute refers to this as wilfully endangering the morals
of himself or others. If you encourage someone to
commit a crime, help him do it, even suggest that it can
be done -you may be on your way to jail.
180
181
Indecent? Immoral?
The catch-all part of juvenile law says you may be
judged to be a delinquent child if you are guilty of in-
decent or immoral conduct. What is indecent or immoral
conduct? Acting in any way that goes against what most
of the people in your community think is right and
proper. The sole decider of this section is the juvenile
court judge, elected by your parents, and therefore
reflecting the thinking of the majority of the community.
There's a Curfew Law
One law always good for an argument is curfew. Once
again, remember it is not up to you or the polieman to
decide whether a law is fair. If you don't like the law as
it is now, tell your legislators who can change it. Curfew
says you're supposed to be home between 11 p.m. and
5 a.m. unless you're just coming home after attending a
religious or educational meeting or a school function
sponsored by a church or school. There is very little you
can do after 11 o'clock that you can't do just as well
before if you put your mind to it.
182
Theft, Shoplifting
In 1963, Indiana's General Assembly put into one
law, the Offenses Against Property Act, all the varieties
of theft from grand larceny through vehicle theft and
embezzlement. One category of theft of which you
should be particularly aware is shoplifting. Stealing
something from a store may sound like an exciting dare,
but remember the maximum penalty for stealing that
sweater could be five years in prison; it would take less
time to earn the money and buy the sweater. A con-
centrated drive on shoplifting in Marion County has
caught many juveniles; are you next?
Don't Hitichhike!
If you hitchhike, you are violating a city ordinance
and can be picked up by police. Youths who hitchhike
are endangering themselves and motorists by darting
into the street to seek rides. Another aspect concerns
protection of juveniles; it is unwise to get into a car with
a stranger. Therefore, the ordinance: Don't hitchhike!
It is unlawful for a person to stand in a roadway for the
purpose of asking for a ri4e. ~ -
183
Think! Don't Crash a Party
If you crash a party, you are subject to arrest for dis-
orderly conduct, refusal to leave or creating a dis-
turbance. You also may be charged with trespassing.
Alcohol, Cigarettes
It is unlawful for any person to sell or give any
alcoholic beverage to a juvenile, or for a minor (anyone
under th^ age of 21) to buy or possess any alcoholic
beverages. It is a crime for a minor to misrepresent his
age in order to buy liquor.
It is unlawful for a minor to buy cigarettes.
Ever Hear of Stolen Car?
If you "borrow a car to go for a ride," you can be
charged with the crime of theft in that you knowingly,
unlawfully and feloniously obtained and exerted un-
authorized control over a certain vehicle.
Carrying Concealed Weapon a Crime
It is a crime to carry a concealed weapon -a spring-
back knife, a firearm of any kind, a spring or air gun
designed to shoot BB shots or any other missile, am-
munition of any kind, whether containing an explosive
or not, for use in any of the weapons mentioned above.
95-158 O— 73— pt. 1 13
184
If You Are Arrested
• «
If you are arrested by the Indianapolis police, you
will be taken to the Juvenile Branch, Indianapolis
Police Department. Your parents will be notified at
once. If your parents are not at home, or if a qualified
adult (guardian) cannot be located, you will be taken to
the Marion County Juvenile Center to await appearance
of your parents. You may be released to your parents,
with guidance on conduct, or you may be released to
them pending your appearance in juvenile court. An
information sheet is sent to Juvenile Court and a time
is set for your appearance there before the Marion
County Juvenile Judge or a referee (attorney named by
the Juvenile Judge). Release to parents is not possible
if you are charged with a crime of violence. For this
charge you will be taken to the Juvenile Center, or if
you are charged with murder, you will be taken to the
Marion County Jail.
If you are arrested by the Sheriffs Department, you
will be taken to the Sheriffs office, where you will wait
until your parents are notified, and go through a process,
similar to that used by the Juvenile Branch of the Police
Department. The information sent to Juvenile Court is
set out on a "petition."
You can be sent to the Indiana Boys School or the
Indiana Girls School by the Judge of Juvenile Court,
or referee before whom you appear.
185
A Criminal Record Is Forever
A Single Act of Recklessness Can Spoil
Your Entire Life
A person who has been convicted of a crime in a
criminal court has a criminal record for the rest of his
life. The punishment ordered by the court, such as
prison or a fine, is only one of the consequences of a
criminal conviction.
Anyone with a criminal record will find it harder to
make and keep friends or get a good job.
Many businesses require employes to be bonded,
and insurance companies usually refuse to bond anyone
with a criminal record.
Civil service and other government jobs may also
be closed to those convicted of crime.
A driver's license may be refused on the basis of a
criminal record. No car or no license closes the door to
many jobs.
The Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps will
usually not give a commission to anyone who has been
convicted of a crime.
A person convicted of a crime cannot be a lawyer.
A person who has been convicted of a felony loses
his rights and cannot vote in any election unless the
governor restores these rights.
186
Youth and The Law
The laws that affect you are these:
Vol. 4, Burns Indiana Statutes, Part 1, Cumulative
Pocket Supplement, Sec. 9-3204 (1963).
"Delinquent Child" defined -The words "delin-
quent child" shall include any boy under the full age of
eighteen (18) years and any girl under the full age of
eighteen (18) years who:
187
(1) Commits an act which, if committed by an adult,
would be a crime not punishable by death or life
imprisonment:
(2) Is incorrigible, ungovernable or habitually dis-
obedient and beyond the control of his parent,
guardian, or other custodian:
(3) Is habitually truant:
(4) Without just cause and without the consent of his
parent, guardian, or other custodian, repeatedly
deserts his home or place of abode:
(5) Engages in an occupation which is in violation of
law:
(6) Associates with immoral or vicious persons:
(7) Frequents a place the existence of which is in
violation of the law:
(8) Is found begging, receiving or gathering alms,
whether actually begging or under the pretext of
selling or offering anything for sale:
(9) Unaccompanied by parent, patronizes or visits any
room wherein there is a bar where intoxicating
liquors are sold:
(10) Wanders about the streets of any city, or in (on) or
about any highways or any public place between the
hours of eleven (11:00) o'clock P.M. and five (5:00)
o'clock A.M. without being on any lawful business
or occupation, except returning home or to his
place of abode after attending a religious or edu-
cational meeting or social function sponsored by
a church or school:
188
(11) Is found in or about railroad yards or tracks: or
who jumps on or off trains: or who enters a car or
engine without lawful authority:
(12) Is found in or about truck terminals, including
freightdocks. garages, other buildings incidental
thereto, or who enters a truck or trailer without
lawful authority:
(13) Uses vile, obscene, vulgar or indecent language:
(14) Uses intoxicating liquor as a beverage, or who uses
opiup, cocaine, morphine or other similar drugs
without the direction of a competent physician:
(15) Knowingly associates with thieves or other mali-
ciously vicious persons:
(16) Is guilty of indecent or immoral conduct:
(17) Deports himself so as to wilfully injure or en-
danger the morals or health of himself or others.
(18) Deports himself so as to wilfully injure or endanger
the person or property of himself or others (Indiana
Acts 1945, Ch. 356, Sec. 4, Page 1724: 1959, Ch. 237,
Sec. 1, Page 566; 1961, Ch. 274, Sec. 1, Page 622).
In addition, there are ordinances and other laws
which directly affect juveniles.
Only about 2% to 3% of young people get into trouble
-but the repeated problems caused by juvenile de-
linquents can affect an entire city -an entire county.
There are no minor crimes. One crime is too many.
One dropout is too many.
189
Inspector Edward C. Kemper Jr., Federal Bureau
of Investigation staff of Director J. Edgar Hoover, was
asked when he spoke recently in Indianapolis: "What
can be done about juvenile delinquency?"
His answer was the following:
Open Letter To A Teen-Ager
What can we do ?
Where can we go — ?
The answer is GO HOME!
Hang the storm windows. Paint the woodwork. Rake
the leaves. Mow the lawn. Shovel the walk. Wash the
car. Learn to cook. Scrub some floors. Repair the sink.
Build a boat. Get a job.
Help your church, the Red Cross, the Salvation
Army. Visit the sick. Assist the poor. Study your les-
sons. And then when you are through -and not too tired
-read a book.
Your parents do not owe you entertainment. Your
village does not owe you recreation facilities. The
world does not owe you a living. You owe the world
something. You owe it your time, and energy, and your
talents so that no one will be at war or in poverty, or
sick or lonely again.
In plain, simple words: GROW UP. Quit being a
crybaby. Get out of your dream world. Develop a back-
bone, not a wishbone. Start acting like a man or a lady.
190
I'm a parent. I'm tired of nursing, protecting, help-
ing, appealing, begging, excusing, tolerating, denying
myself needed comforts for every whim and fancy, just
because your selfish ego, instead of common sense,
dominates your personality and thinking and requests.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil
is for good men to do nothing."
-Edmund Burke
191
192
EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS
ACCIDENT
FIRE
HOSPITALS
MEDICAL
EMERGENCY
POISON
CONTROL
CENTER
DEAD
ANIMALS
STRAY DOGS
WILD ANIMALS
STREET
CHUCKHOLES
PUBLIC
HEALTH
PUBLIC
WELFARE
DEPARTMENT
Indianapolis -Call 633-2811 (Police)
Marion County -(outside city) -633-2811 (Sherif!)
State -633^926 (State Police)
Indianapolis Police (Emergency only) -633-2811, or dial
"O" and tell operator where you live- street and number,
city or town, as "Greenwood, Plainfield"-each area has
police agency.
Information - Police andianapolis)- 633-3000
(as if you wish information on police recruiting)
Indianapolis - call 634-1313
(Other fire departments- inside phone book cover-or dial
"O" and tell operator exact location where help is needed)
Community Hospital
General Hospital
Methodist Hospital
St. Francis Hospital
St. Vincent's Hospital
353-1411
636-6311
924-6411
787-3311
926-3301
(If you need a doctor) -call 926-3466 (Marion County Med-
ical Society Exchange)
Call 636-6311 (General Hospital -ask for Poison Control)
Sanitation Department (Indianapolis)— call 633-3574
Municipal Dog Pound (Indianapolis) -call 633-7957
(Fox, opossum, raccoon)- Indiana Natural Resource De-
partment-call 633-5254 (daytime). (Night)-call 635-2220-
West Indianapolis. (Night)- call 849-0587 - East Indian-
apolis.
Street Commissioner (Indianapolis) -call 633-3623
(Birth certificates, sanitation, housing) -call 633-3743
Call 633-3997
193
MEASURIINC; THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE
INDIANAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT
FLEET
PLAN
WINSTON CHURCHILL
CHIEF OF POLICE
194
MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE INDIANAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT
FLEET PLAN
AN
INDIANAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT
PROJECT
BY
RAYMOND A. WALTON, JR.
December, 1972
195
Keepine; in mind the primary objectives of
any Law Enforcement agency, as well as its
responsibilities to the citizens it serves,
the Indianapolis Police Pepartment is
constantly on watch for new pro',rams and
ideas which will further these ends.
When programs meeting these criteria are
initiated, only part of the task is
complete. Following implementation must
be surveillance, evaluation, and if deemed
necessary, procedure changes or even the
complete discontinuation, if the program
is determined insufficiently effective.
The following document - only a part of the
Department's continuing crime study and
research program - was written in an effort
to determine the effectiveness of the
Indianapolis Police Department Fleet Plan,
The data from which the conclusions are
made are presented in the tables at the
end of the study so that any department
interested in initiating a similar Fleet
Plan program may better compare their
statistics to those of the Indianapolis
Police Department.
We feel that this Fleet Plan is better
enabling us to meet our responsibilities
to the Citizens of Indianapolis.
Winston Churchill
Chief of Police
196
TARLE OF COMTF.MTS
chart index
table index
Sir^lMARY
111
iv
CFAPTFR
PAGE
I. INTRODUnTICl'
TI. AUTHORIZATION - RESTRICT-IOMS - RFISPOMSIBILITIES
III. TOHICLE COSTS
IV. VISIBLE CP.IWS
V. ACciDE'rrs
VI. TRAFFIC CITATIONS
VII. MANHOimS OF PATROL TIME
VITI. xpRALF
IX. CONCLUSION
TABLES
BTBLIOGRAPHy
3
h
9
19
27
28
31
32
3U
Ui
ii
197
CHART TNDCT
WART NUlflFR ILLHSTR^.TTON P^^^
1^ 'Preventive Maintenance/Repairs Costs 6
Per Vehicle for 1^68 through 197?
2, Robberies for 106L through 197? 10
3, FKirglaries for 196U through 197? 11
h. Larcenies for 196U through 197? 1?
$. Vehicle Thefts for 196L through 197? 13
6, Monetary Savi.ngs in Visible Crimes - 1971 l5
7, Visible Crime Decrease in Indianapolis 17
Compared to National Averaj^e Increase - 1971
8, Accidents Involving Marked Police ?0
Vehicles for 1968 through 197?
9, Accidents Per Vehicle for Marked Patrol ??
Vehicles for 1968 through 197?
10. Percent Decrease of Accidents Reported 25
to Indianapolis Police Department
for 1967 through 1970
iil
198
TABLF TMDF.X
TAi^LF, m. '^°F OF DATA P4GF,
1, Cost of Upkeep on Police Department
Vehicles for iq6B through 197? 3U
?. Visible Crimes Reported to the Indianapolis
Police nepartment for 196lj t'r:rough 197? 35
3. . Robberies Reported to the F.n.I. for the
Uniform Crime Renorts for 1966 through 1971 36
h. Rurglaries Reported to the F.R.I, for the
Uniform Crime Reports for 1966 through 1971 37
5, Larcenies Reported to the F.H.I, for the
Uniform Crime Reports for 1966 through 1971 3f\
6. Vehicle Thefts Renorted to the F.T.I, for the
Uniform Crime Reports for 1966 through 1971 39
Tfethod used for Arriving at the Met
Savings in Visible Crimes for 1971 Uo
8. Accidents Involving Marked Patrol Cars
for 1968 through 197? Ul
9. Number and Types of Accidents Reported
for 196U through 197? U2
10, Percent of Annual Change in Reported
Accidents for 1965 through 197? U3
IV
199
SUM-zTARY
This study is intended to evaluate the Indianapolis Police
Department's Fleet Plan. Under this plan each field patrolman was
issued =1 marked patrol car to use full tine. This included both
on-duty and off-duty. The field Sergeants and Lieutenants vrere also
issued their o'-m personal marked patrol vehicle.
These officers nay - and in fact are encouraged to - use
their patrol cars while off-duty, hut when doing so must main-
tain radio contact at all times so as to be available for emer-
gencies which nay occur in their immediate vicinity. The indi-
vidual officers are resoonsible for the cleanliness of their ve-
hicle, inside and outside, and must change their own flat tires
when off-duty.
In return for this personal use of department vehicles,
the department buys the vehicles, provides all preventive main-
tenance, including gasoline, provides all repairs, both mechan-
ical and body, and pays for the insurance coverage.
This study is based on two types of analysis of data. One
is comparing data before and a^'ter the inception of the Fleet
Plan. The other is analyzing data covering a period of several
years to indicate trends which may or may not be effected by
this plan.
Following are the principle findings of this study.
95-158 O — 73— pt. 1 14
200
Vehicle Costs
The initial cost of increasing the fleet size from 110
vehicles to h^'? vrhiclrs was 3'.650,OOn, of which about $?1?,500
would have been spent on normal replacement. This puts the in-
creased expenditure at $)i37,?00.
Average anntial vehicle replacement costs have increased
about S:50,000.
Average annual preventive maintenance/repair costs have
increased about ?. .317, 000.
Insurance premiums have increased $52,000 a year.
Preventive maintenance/repair costs per vehicle dropped
17.3^ in the first full calendar year after the Fleet Plan.
Visible Crimes
Due to a more complete and accurate reporting system
going into effect in 1970, selected crimes - Robbery, Burglary,
Larceny and Vehicle Theft - went up. However, the drop in these
selected crimes in 1971 saved potential victims about a half
million dollars. These crimes were selected because of their
visibility from a patrol car and the deterrent factor which
marked patrol vehicles can have on these crimes.
Accidents
Although the total number of accidents involving marked
patrol cars increased slightly, on an accident-per-vehicle rate,
there was a decrease from 3.1 accidents to 1.8 accidents per
marked vehicle per year.
vi
201
Reported accidents fron citizens were already on a down-
ward trend before this plan, hut during the full calendar year
after the Fleet Plan the total reported accidents dropped an
actual 10.6?!. This was 7. 3"^^ more decrease than indicated by a
projected trend. On a per accident cost basis in the three gen-
eral categories of fatalities, personal injuries, and property
damage accidents, this amounted to a savings of about .7 million
dollars .
Citations for Moving Traffic Violations
Citations issued for moving traffic violations increased
Lfl.B? in 1970 over 1968.
Manhours of Street Exposure
There is a definite increase in manhours of street ex-
posure without having to hire more personnel. The one measurable
facet of this is an additional 1.? hours per man per day of pa-
trol time. This is the equivalent of an additional 73.8 patrol-
men at an amnual salary of $635,000, not including any fringe
benefits .
Morale
No documentable facts were uncovered, but the indications
point to an upward trend .
Vll
202
CHAPTER I
INT'P.ODHCTION
The Indianapolis Police Departnent Fleet Plan is the
issuance of marked natrol vehicles to each officer in the Oper-
ations Division who is assif^ned to the field. This includes
beat Patrolmen, field Sergeants and field Lieutenants. Each
of these men has full use of his ovm marked patrol vehicle
on'a 2U-hour basis, including on-duty and o*'f-duty time. These
officers are encouraged to drive their natrol vehicles when off-
duty, but must observe certain rules which were established to
govern their conduct when doing so.
When the Indianapolis Police Denartment implemented its
Fleet Plan, expectations of resulting effects were high. The
areas of expectation are pursued in this study in an attempt
to determine the "cost vs benefits" effectiveness of the Fleet
Plan,
Some of the data collected lends itself to a comparison
of the facts immediately before and after full implementation
of the plan. Other data presented covers a period of years
indicating a trend which, in some cases, changes during the full
calendar year following the plan going into effect.
The Indianapolis Police Department started issuing the
new vehicles in June of 1969 and by August the Fleet Plan was
in full swing. However, due to the available data being grouped
by calendar years, it was decided to use calendar years for this
203
study rather th^n fleet years, which would have been from
Auf^ust to August.
The general areas pursued by this study are:
1. Vehicle costs
2. Visible Crimes
3. Tra^'fic Accidents
k. rianhours of Street Exposure
5. Traffic Citations
6. Morale
-2-
204
CHAPTER II
AUTH0RI7.ATI0r - RESTRICTIONS - R'^SPOMSniTJTIES
In order to implement the Fleet Plan, a City Ordinance
had to be passed authorizinft the purchase and financing of
these fleet vehicles. This included not only the maximum a-
mount of money to be spent but complete and precise vehicle
specifications as well.
The Indianapolis Police Department then issued a Special
Order covering the maintenance, care, and responsibilities of
driving the city-owned marked patrol vehicle. The maintenance,
including gasoline and oil and all repairs, is the responsi-
bility of the Department. Each officer, however, for presenting
his car at the city garage in order to receive this work. Each
officer is also responsible for the cleanliness of his vehicle,
inside and outside,
VJhen an officer is driving his vehicle off-duty, non-
sworn or civilian personnel may ride in the vehicle but shall
not drive it. At all times, however, the officer driving the car
is responsible for the actions of any "non-official" passengers.
Each officer is required to stay in radio contact anytime he is
in the vehicle and must respond to any emergency in his immediate
vicinity. Mo vehicle may be taken outside of the county without
proper permission.
-3-
205
CHAPTFR III
VEHICLE COSTS
Initial Cost
The greatest single expenditure of the Fleet Plan was
the initial cost of purchasing the vehicles. Prior to this
plan, the Operations Division maintained about 110 narked
vehicles, replacing about 85 of them each year.
To put the Fleet Plan into effect, 320 new vehicles
were purchased. For this ourpose, the city council appropiri-
3
ated S650,000,
Replacement Cost
The department expected the new fleet vehicles to last
about three times as long as they did under the former plan.
This expectation was realized and in the late spring of 197?
another fleet purchase took place. This time 3lU new vehicles
h
were purchased at a per unit cost of $2912.27, Considering the
former replacement rate of 85 vehicles per year, then the new
Fleet Plan shows an average annual replacement rate of 105, or
Just 20 more per year than before the new Fleet Plan, Since the
cost of vehicles varies from year to year, an arbitrary amount
of $2500.00 per unit is used to compare the before aid after
the Fleet Plan cost of vehicle replacement.
At the replacement rate of 85 vehicles per year at
$?500 per vehicle, the cost of vehicle replacement prior to
the Fleet Plan was about $212,500 annually. The ad'ter-the-plan
•Superscripts refer to the corresponding number in the Bibliography
-u-
206
rate being 10?, puts this amount up to $262,500 or an average
annual increased expenditure of about $50,000.
Preventive Maintenance/Repairs
The total funds disbursed by the Indianapolis Police
Department to the city garage furnished the basis for analy-
zing this area of study. The city garage provides all mainten-
ance and repairs for the department's vehicles. The categories
covered under these funds are:
1. Parts and Supplies - including gasoline and oil
2. Labor
3. Overhead
li. Outside Contractual Services
The amount disbursed (Table 1) went from $127,103.90
in 1968 to an annual average of $UUU,05l.lfi. This is an in-
creased annual expenditure of $3l6,9U7.28,
An interesting point brought to light while checking
the garage disbursements was the per vehicle cost (Chart 1),
The preventive maintenance/repair cost per vehicle in 1970
dropped 17.3^ from I968. The increase in per vehicle cost of
2,85? in 1971 and ,9% in 1972 seems to reflect the nomal in-
crease in the cost of everything. The fact that the per vehicle
cost decreased this much and has fairly well held it for three
years is reflected in the vehicles lasting for three years.
Insurance Costs
The Indianapolis Police Department carries liability
insurance on each of its vehicles. This insurance covers other
-5-
207
CHART 1
PRFVF>'TI\fK miMTENANCE ^m REPAIR COSTS PER VEHICIE FOR
THE INDIAKAPOLTS POLICE DEPART'f tn" ELEET
1200
-
1190
-
llBO
-
1170
_
1160
N
ll'^O
\
llUO
\
1130
\
1120
\
"1110
\
1100
\
1090
\
lOBO
\
1070
\
1060
\
^
1050
\
loLo
\
1030
\
s
1020
\
1010
\
1000
m \
■
990
\ ^"-"^
980
\ y^
970
\ j^
960
\y^
950
-
9l»0
.
930
.
920
•
910
-
900
- 1 1 1 1 _
SOURCE: INDIANAPOLIS
POLICE DEPART^IEMT
BUDGET RECORDS
1968 1970 1971 1972'
YEAR
*THE FIOHRES FOR 1972 ARE PROJECTED EROH THE STATISTICS
FOR T^T. FIRST MINE MONTHS OF THE YEAR
208
drivers, passengers and vehicles for both personal injury and
repair, should the driver of a police vehicle be involved in
an accident in which it is determined that the officer is at
fault. The police vehicles are repaired in the city garage at
the Police Denartment's expense.
The cost of this insurance coverage in 1968 was $100 per
vehicle and was raised to $137 per vehicle after implementation
6
of the Fleet Plan, With the increase per vehicle and the greater
number of vehicles, this represents an increase of $5?, 000 for
the after- the -plan costs.
Car Washes
Prior to this plan the marked patrol vehicles were washed
about once a week at a cost of $1.?5 each. Under the Fleet Plan
each officer is responsible for washing his own car - or having
it washed. This is a savings of about $7,000 annually.
Snow Tires
The department formerly furnished snow tires for each
marked patrol vehicle. This is no longer true under the Fleet
Plan, If an officer wants snow tires on his personal patrol
car, he must furnish them at his own expense. This is not a
savings, however, because the department now equips the patrol
vehicles with positraction type rear axles. The savings on the
snow tires and the cost of the special axle just about cancel
each other out.
Miscellaneous
Batteries and brakes on the vehicles used twenty-four
209
hours a day, seven days a week, averaf^ed lasting about six
months. Under the Fleet Plan the average life of both of these
items has increased ^OO"? to eighteen months.
Arcordinp to the Indianapolis Police Denartment Vehicle
Inspection records, the breakdown of hov; well the officers are
taking care of their nersonal police cars is as follows:
one third took averarte care
one third took good care
one third took excellent care
-8-
210
CHAPTER IV
VISIRLF, CRIMES
One of the higher expectations of the result of more
marked patrol cars on the street was the deterrent factor in
crimes which may he visible - and consequently somewhat pre-
ventable - from a patrol car. The crimes selected which ful-
fill this criteria are Robbery, Burglary, Larceny and Vehicle
Theft. Charts 2 through $ illustrate the number of crimes re-
ported to the Indianapolis Police Department for 196h through
7
197?.
As can be seen in these charts, there was a substantial
increase in imported crimes in 1970, which was the first full
calendar year after the initiation of the Fleet Plan. This in-
crease may well be due to the department changing its reporting
system to be more comDlete and accurate. This change involved
not only using more of the computer's potential, but also com-
ing more closely in line with the F. B. I. Uniform Crime Report-
ing system.
Another factor to be considered is the national average.
As shown in Tables 3 through 6, the total number of selected
8
crimes showed a substantial increase nationally. To state this
another way, also listed on these tables is the percentage in-
crease of each of the four selected crimes for several years .
This, too, illustrates that the national average was on the
rise in 1970.
Due to these factors, 1971 is used in an attempt to de-
-9-
211
CHART 2
R0hE_Ri:i3 REPORTiiD TC THiJ IKDIAl'APOLIS POLId;;
D .lAnTI-i.:.r T BY YiilitR AKD NUf BiR
2300
2200
i
o
g
196k 1965 1966 196? 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972"
YEAR
SOURCE: I1:DIANAP0LIS POLICii;
Dj.?ARTI-:£i;T'3 Alvl:UAL STATISTICAL
■"'THB; 1972 STATISTICS ARE PI-'" J ii'IlT.^D i^ROL THb STATISTICS
FOR Tll-i FIRST TEI' MONTHS OF TTIE Yi::AR
-10-
212
CHART 3
BUHnLARTF^S RFPOPTpD TO Tr^i PIDIAMAPOLIS
POLICE DEPART?{FMT BY YEAR A^Ti Ml'riBFR
11000
10500
10000
9? 00
h-1
9000
8500
C3
a:
8000
c
g
7500
S:
7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
196h 1965 1966 1967 1963 1969 1970 1971 1972
YEAR
SOURCE: IMDIANAPOLTS POLICE
DEPART'IENT ANNUAL STATISTICAL
REPORTS
THE 197? STATISTICS ARE PRO-IECTED FROM T'TTO
STATISTICS FOR T!"^ FIRST TEN MONTHS 0!' r,W YEAR
-11.
w
K
u
I
213
cyiART' U
LARCENIES R^POR'^^D TO ^tfr ITIDTANAPOLTS
POTJCF DF'^ART'lf'FT BY ^\R Affll MU-^'^ER
19000
196U 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972*
YEAR
SOURCE: IMDIAMAPOLTS POLICE
DEPARTMENT ANNUAL
STATISTICAL RE.PORTS
^HF 197? STATISTICS ARE orojECTFD FROTI T}^-
S'^ATISTTCS FOR '""F '^IRST T" MOT'THS ">^ T'f^ V'\R
■1?-
E-i
is
E-'
O
o
214
CHART 5
VEHTCLF. THEFTS RE^ORTm T^ THF I>[DIANAPOLLS
POLICF, nEP^RT'TFNT RY YT:AR A'D NUl^ER
6000
196h 1965 1966 196? 1968 I969 1970 1971 1972*
YEAR
source: indianapolis police
departmf:nt annual
statistical reports
THF 197? STATISTICS ARE PROJECTED FROM
TfiE FIRST TFN MONTHS OF THE YEAR
-13-
215
termtne tbe effectiveness, if any, of the additional exposure
of the marked patrol cars. Again, looking at Charts 2 through 5
it is ob\rious that the decrease in these visible crimes is no-
table. It is felt by this writer that the increased exposure of
marked police vehicles is primarily responsible for these de-
creases.
To measure tMs decrease in reported visible crimes, it
was necessary to translate it into dollars. This was done by
using the total value of stolen it,ems as listed in the Indiana-
polis Police Department's annual statistical report. Usin^; this
amount in each category along with the number of reported crimes
listed in each category, an average dollar-value per crime was
comouted. Table 7 shows the method of computation which took into
consideration the value of stolen property which was recovered.
The final totel dollar-value for each category of crime
is illustrated in Chart 6 which indicates +he savings to the
citi7.ens of Indianapolis in 1971 due to the decrease in the
selected visible crimes. Figure 1, which illustrates the per
crime savings, also shows that the total savings is close to a
million dollars.
Robbery $ 1?,038.U6
Burglary Slih3,823.20
Larceny $220,227.02
Vehicle Theft $255,937.10
Total $932,025.78
(Figure 1)
Although no other major change in the Indianapolis Police
Department's procedures came to light during this study, it is
-lU-
95-158 O— 73— pt. 1 15
216
8
CHART 6
MONEY SAVED BY THE CITIZENS OF BIDIANAPOLIS
IN 1971 DUE TO DECREASE IN VISIBLE CRIfffiS
500,000
-
U5o,ooo
I
hOOjOOO
350,000
-
300,000
-
250,000
200,000
-
150,000
-
100,000
-
50,000
-
0
- 1-1
ROBBERY BURGLARY LARCENY WHICLE THEFT
CRIME
SOURCE: INDIANAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT
ANNUAL STATISTICAL REPORT - 1971
-15-
217
recognised that these are probably other variables involved
which are not explored here. Due to this, it will be conser-
vatively estimated that only about fifty oercent of the de-
crease in selected visible crimes is attributable to the Fleet
Plan.
This brings the amount saved down to a probably more
realistic figure of about .5 million dollars. This amount in
itself would almost cover the original investment of the ad-
ditional vehicles for this Fleet Plan.
One other possible variable which could be part of the
answer to the decrease in these crimes is the national average.
It was thought that if the national average had also dropped
noticeably in 1971 that whatever caused this drop could have
also contributed to the decrease in Indianapolis. However, a
quick look at Tables 3 through 6 show that the national aver-
age not only did not decrease but in fact substantially in-
P
creased.
For a comoarison of the national average in 1971 to
Indianaoolis in 1971, Chart 7 very clearly shows that India-
napolis v/as in much better shape statistically. Figure 2 shows
the difference between Indianapolis and the national average.
Crime Nation. Avg. Increase Indpls Decrease Difference
Robbery ^J^CT -25.1% *U9.1'J^
^rglary nh.^?? -25.3'*; *39,QA
larceny +lii5? -31.85? *U5.8^
Vehicle Theft +011"^^ -37.7? *hl.7'i
(Figure 2)
Therefore, the decrease in Indianapolis can not be con-
sidered indicative of the national average. In fact, the differ-
-16-
218
m
M
a.
f^
#-
t-
g
u
G
^
.1.
H
C5
<c
a
tn
pu
<
fO
o
Q
f-
^
f-i
K
o a
Oh
^
M
K
CD
U-
a
<H
t^
u
o
cr,
fH
«■
fe
?;
ri
fe.
K
o
W
CT
cr; <
1
E
<
<
iJ
K «;
CO
s^
•<
o
[«-
M
&
S:
M
fe
g
F-
c-
C-
F-
o
ci
^
U-
O Ct
M
«*
c
F-H
o
rn
E3
rH
►J r-
H^
O-
M r-l
<c
g
CHART 7
siJWiHO aaL05n;is
o
w
o
(0Z6T)
g
CO
M
•-]
o
a.
o
Eh Os
to i-t
o
I <:
E-
OC On
CO
E-i
g
p..
0\ << W
<-• Pr 2
^sey
o
CO
1 E-
oi
o
. . E-"
>J CO
O M
a, E-i
K
O
<
o
o
E-<
«
a.
sjwiao aaioaias
-17-
219
ence could be computed on the same dollar-value per crime basis
as before and probably show a savings of well over a million
dollars. However, it seems that the nrthod already used for
conputinc: the sa^^in^^s is a much more accurate one, which, to
reiterate, saved the neonle of Indianapolis about a half-
million dollars in 1971.
-38 •
220
CFAPTER V
ACCIDEMTS
In a study of this type, two general categories of
accidents must be considered. One is accidents involving ve-
hicles of the Indianapolis Police Department fleet and the
other is reported accidents fron the community.
Fleet '^ehicle Accidents
Accidents involving police vehicles have always been
an area of concern to the administrators of a oolice departnent,
and with the coming of the Fleet Plan has become more so to the
Indianapolis Police Department Officials. A superficial look at
10
the total accidents involving marked patrol cars (See Chart 8)
shows the cause for the increased concern. Although the total
number of accidents dropped in 1971, it shot up in 1970 and
headed back up in 1972. At no time has the number of accidents
dropped below what they were before the start of the F'leet Plan.
The cost of these accidents is difficult to determine
since the City's insurance does not cover the repair of the City-
owned vehicles. In addition to this, a settlement from a citi-
zen's insurance company does not come back to the Indianapolis
Police Department to pay for repairs but, instead, is put into
the City's General Fund, This means that both under the old and
the new plan, the Indianapolis Police Department loses money
from its budget.
The superficial picture, however, does not point out an
interesting fact which does come to light when the fleet ve-
-19"
221
CHART 8
"ARKV'D PA'^ROL CARS OF THF P!DIAMAPnLIS POLICE
DEPARTMF.N'^ WOL'^FD IN ACCIDEMTS
total
SOIFRCF: "PIDIANAPOLIS POLICE
DEPART'WIT'S ACCIDENT Kl'.VIFM
ROAFD RECORDS
YEAR
*THE MUMRFR OF ACCTDEMTS FOR 197? AR'' PROJECTED
FROM TV^ STATISTICS FOR T"F FI"?ST NINE MONTHS
-20-
222
hide accidents are more closley scrutinized. Chart 8 also
breaks down the accidents into two sub-categories:
1. On-duty accidents
2. Off-duty accidents
vrhen these sub-categories are studied, it can be seen why the
total number of accidents is increasing: the off-duty accidents
are the cause. Since marked patrol cars were not generally used
off-duty prior to the Fleet Plan, the off-duty accident rate
starts in 1970, and steadily raises. The on-duty accidents,
however, run just the opposite. They have declined since 1968
at a more than casual rate, Follovring the present trend of on-
duty and off-duty accidents, they should he about the same in
a few years.
This writer feels that in order to stem th«^ tide of
off-duty accidents, the Indianajjolis Police Department will
have to apply more stringent restrictions on the off-duty dri-
ving of marked oatrol vehicles. This is not to suggest that they
not be driven off-duty, because this would kill the "more ex-
posure - less crime and accidents" theory. It is recommended,
however, that the types of errands on which they should not be
driven off-duty be more explicitly stated by the department.
It would then necessarily follow that an officer involved in an
off-duty accident who was found guilty of violating these re-
strtctions must be more surely disciplined.
Still another way of looking at these accidents is on
an average accident per vehicle basis. Chart 9 shows the average
-21-
223
CHART 9
AVERAGF. NUMBER OF ACCIDEIITS PER YEAR
PER MARKED PATROL VEHICIE
^
o
<
o
I
2
U.o
^
3.8
.
3.6
-
3.U
-
3.2
-
3.0
-
2.8
_
2.6
^
2.U
k
2.?
-
2.0
-
1.8
-
!
1.6
-
1
l.U
-
1.2
-
1.0
-
.8
.
.6
.
M
_
.2
0
2
l._
_L__
L..
1
SOURCE: INDIAtlAT'OLIS
POLICE DEPART?1ENT
ACCIDEMT REVIEW BOARD
RECORDS
1968 1970 1971 1972*
YEAR
*THE FTOURE USED FOR 1972 IS PROJECTED FROM
THE STATISTICS FOR THE FIRST NINE J«)NTHS
-??-
224
accident prr vehicle rate before and after the plan. Since
each car is - in theorv'^ - only on-duty one third as much as
it was previously, this exposure factor was included in com-
puting the accidents per vehicle rate. Thje actual average
accident ner vehicle rate was as follows!
1968 3.1 accidents per vehicle
1970 .9 accidents per vr-hicle
1971 .8 accidents per vehicle
197? .8 accidents per vehicle
However, under the Fleet Plan, the marked patrol cars are on
the street much more than the former seven and a half hours.
For one einht hour shift they are on the street about nine
hours considering travel-time from home to the roll-call sight
and back home again.
They are also on the street on the officer's day off for
preventive maintenance, renairs, court, inspections and other
errands of a personal nature. Therefore, it is thought that
each car is moving on the street only about half as much as it
was before the plan. Using this as a measure, the average acci-
dents per vehicle were doubled, arriving in the amount shown in
Chart 9. Although tbere must be an overall increase in the total
cost of renairs due to the increase in total number of vehicles,
it is a Doint in favor of the plan that the per vehicle repair
cost has decreased.
Reported Accidents from Citizens
This is another area of high expectations by the creators
of the Fleet Plan. To measure the plan's effectiveness in this
11
area, statistics have been analyzed for 196U through 1972.
-?3.
225
The*>e statistics (Table 9) indicate trends in thp annual num-
ber of retxjrtod accidents in all categories. For this reason,
the period of time covering the trend immediately beforfe and
after the start of the Fleet Plan is the period of time used
here to study the plan's success or failure.
The year 1968 began a general downward trend of total
annual accidents. Therefore, when it is said that the number
of accidents decreased in 1970, the first full calendar year
of the Fleet Plan, it does not give a true picture of what
really happened. To get a true pictur- the already downward
trend was projected for 1070. This, compared to the actual
number of accidents in each category in 1970, could be com-
pared as shown in Chart 10. The difference between the pro-
.iected trend and the actual number of total accidents is 109h.
In other words there were 7.3'^ less total accidents in 1970
than night have been expected through projection.
What this means to the citizens o^ Indjananolis is less
money expended. Every accident, regardless of the type, repre-
sents money spent by someone. These expenditures include but
are not limited to salary lost due to time off from work, car
repairs, hospital costs and increased insurance premiums. While
a continued decrease in the accident rate might not cause in-
surance rates to decrease, it should lessen the proability of
them being raised.
In terms of dollars, the difference betwpen the project-
ed number of accidents and the actual number was used to com-
pute the savings.
-2U.
226
Ci'kRT 10
TYPE km niPIBEn ok ACCTDEMTS PFPORTrn T'O THF I'IDTA'^IAPOLTS
POTJCF DF"ARTr!ETIT FOR 1967 through 1970
O
M
o
o
-a:
c
a;
16,000
IS', 500
15,000
iii,5oo L
lL,ooo -
13,500 -
13,000 .
''.^OO
9,000
8,500
8,000
7,500
7,000
6,500
6,000
5,500
90 .
80 .
70 1-
60
total
accidents
'.3^
property
damage
personal injury
fatal
-10.8;?
.2.2f,
SOURCE:
INDIANAPOLIS POLICE
DEPARTrtENT'S ANMUAL
STATISTICAL REPORTS
FOR 1967 - 1970
-23.8^
— L ' „ I ll_
1967 1968 1969 1970^
YEAR
ACTUAL
PROJECTED
-?5-
227
ROO
700
05 600
^ c 1 "^^
r-* -H m iiOO
o o 300
° e ?00
100
0
Property Personal Fatality
Damage Injury
Type of Accident (Figure 3 )
Figure 3 graphically illustrates the decrease into dollars
saved. The translation into dollars was accomplished using
12
the following information:
Average $ 3^0 per Property Damage accident;
Average $ ?,300 per Personal Injury accident;
Average $38,700 per Fatality accident,
93ii fewer Property Damage accidents than projected;
13U fewer Personal Injury accidents than projected;
18 fevrer Fatality accidents than projected.
Therefore the gross amount saved is $l,338,OliO.
Here again, as in the visible crimes discussed earlier,
it is recognized that there may be other variables involved. Al-
though none were uncovered by this study, it is estimated that
the net savings contributable to the Fleet Plan are about half
of the total. This brings the savings to about ,7 million dol-
lars.
-26-
228
CHAPTER VT
.TRAFFIC CITATIONS
Although there are about the same number of marked pa-
trol vehicles on-duty at any Riven time, due to there being
off-d\ity cars on the street too, the total number has increased.
The anticipated effects of this additional exposure led the de-
partment to expect an increase in citations written for moving
violations. It was thought that the additional citations written
might help contribute to a decrease in the total accident picture.
From Chanter V it has been seen that the accidents have
substantially decreased. Whether or not citations written for
moving violations influenced this decrease is only speculation.
It is knovm, however, that the number of citations issued for
moving traffic violations jumped from 32,701 in 1968 to 58,62li
13
in 1970. This is an increase of hfl.8^.
Although these citations were paid for by the citizens
who received them, it is felt that this expense by the violators
is far more than cancelled out by the monetary savings in acci-
dents.
-?7-
229
CHAPTTP. VTT
mMHOlIRS OP PA-^RnL TT'IF
What, is heinp studied here is an increase of nanhours
on the street in marked patrol vehicles without an increase
in the nunher of personnel. This area is much more difficult
to n:n down. It is hard to substantiate the true number of extra
nanhours received because it is not exactly how many off-duty
hours the marked patrol vehicles are on the street. It is known,
however, that the officers are nsinr, their marked cars off-duty.
This is evidenced hv the fact that from ?0% to 30^ of the acci-
dents involving marked natrol cars hanpened during off-duty
driving time.
For the purnose of this study two areas of additional
manhours will be considered: the incalculable areas; and the
calculable areas. The areas of activities which can not be
measured anywhere close to accurately includes:
1, O^f-duty officers responding to radio calls
?, Emergency mobilization
3. Non-report ser^/ices oerformed
Off-duty Cars Responding to Radio Calls
Under the Fleet Plan, each officer is charged with the
responsibility of remaining in radio contact anytime he is in
his police car. It is well known within the department that
this resTX)nsibility is - for the most part - being met. At the
scene of an incident requiring several officers, it is common-
place to see some of them i n civilian clothing, an indicator
of their off-duty status.
-28-
230
FTtiergency Mobilization
Unfortunately, there vrill be occasions when it is
necessary to mobilize off-duty personnal. Prior to this plan,
an officer had to drive his personal car to headquarters,
hope to find a parking place and then wait at hp^dquarters
for deoartment transportation to the emergency area.
Under the Fleet Plan, when an officer receives the call
to mobilize, he may also be told where to mobilize. This saves
all of the time previously stated and puts the officer right
into the exact location needed to deal with the emergency.
Mon-report Services Performed
Non-report services are those services for which it is
not necessary to submit a formal report. An example might be
a citizen requesting information of some type. In an instance
in vrhich a citizen might normally have to telephone head-
quarters for a patrol car, the chances are good that the same
citizen will see one of the many off-duty cars and be able to
obtain the information from him. This would save the time of
an on-duty officer thereby freeing him for other radio runs.
Measurable Area
The area of increased manhours which can be measured
is that of extra time on the street immediately before and
after the assigned on-duty time. As an example, an officer
who was on the fi:0O A.M. to h:00 P.M. shift did not leave
roll-call until abotitt 8:1? A.M. and left his beat to return
the car to headquarters about 3:li? P.M. This amounts to a
-99-
231
street time of about seven and one-half hours.
Under the Fleet Plan, the same officer on the same shift
will leave hone in his marked police vehicle by 7:30 A.M. and
will hopefully be back home by U:30 P.M. This comes to about
nine hours of street time which is an increase of an hour and
one half per man per day. The number of additional manhours on
the street gained per year amounts to 136,9%. Translated into
additional manpower, this is equivalent to hiring an additional
73. R men.
This would require an initial budget increase of $5U2,L30
for salaries alone. The average length-of-service time of the
patrolman on the street is five years, according to the Planning
and Research Branch of the Department. The salary for these addi-
tional 73.8 men at the five year level would he $63'5,060. This is
a more realistic amount and still does not include items such as
clothing allowance and other benefits or normal personnel costs.
Other increases in manhours on the street to be mentioned
are travel time while obtaining preventive maintenance, repairs,
inspections and car washes. Whereas all of these activities used
to be accomplished while on-duty, they are now performed during
off-duty hours. This puts marked patrol cars on the street and
increases their exposure.
-30-
95-158 O — 73— pt. 1 16
232
CHAPTFP. VITI
This is onR area in vrhich there are no data from
which to draw a conclusion. There are, hovever, indications
tending to suoport the Fleet Plan from a morale point of
view, T'he department hris nresented this Fleet Plan as hav-
ing the effect on each individual officer who has the use
of a full time police vehicle of the equivalent of a size-
ahle raise in pay. This contention is hacked hy the fact
that the officers are encouraged to drive their police ve-
hicles off-duty, therehy sabring these officers the expense
of driving their personal car or of buying a second car.
This premise appears valid, although it is not known
Just how much of a morale boost this is for those officers
who have their own police vehicles. Conversely, it is not
known whether or not this has any negative effect on those
officers working in other divisions of the department who
are not assigned their ovm police vehicles.
To reach a conclusion on the total morale factor -
positive or negative - would require an in-depth study of
all of the swom personnel on the department.
-31-
233
CHAPTER IX
CONCLUSION
This study has attempted to analyze the Indianapolis
Police Departmpnt's Fleet Plan. To arrive at a conclusion on
a cost vs savings basis, as nany areas as possible have been
translated into dollar values. Following are the findings:
Costs
Initial cost $650,000
Minus the 2SS cars which would have
been purchased under the old plan
in 1969, 1970, 1971 -$5lO,000
Net Cost $mo,000
Increase in Preventive Maintenance/Repairs $317,000
Increase in cost of insurance coverage $ $2,000
Savings
Car VJashes $ 7,000
Decrease in Visible Crimes $500,000
Decrease in Citizen' s accidents $700,000
Increased Ifenhours of Patrol time $635,000
Total Costs $ 509,000
Total Savings $1,8U?,000
Difference $1,333,000
-32-
234
Therfifore, t.hf result of this sturfj' is that the citizens
of Indianapolis have thus far saved about 1,3 million dollars
on the Indianapolis Police Denartment Fleet Plan.
Further, i t is recoimended that any police department
considering conversion to a Fleet Plan should include in this
conversion a pre-established method of collecting data for
periodic analysis of the plan's effectiveness. In this way a
department can either justify the continuation of a Fleet Plan
or make necessary changes in thp plan which wil] keep it an
on-going and effective program.
-33-
235
o
t-l
o
03
c;
•3: iD
M cc
a
z: E-
M ^.
CO Q
■a:
f-
(^
■z.
?■
*•
l». K
<.
W
D-
6" W
^
O
tj:
f^^
e
M
►J
■<
(-.
C-
0-
«
cr,
M
(-
^
<<
u.
y
<«
<
e
^
f;
f;
b
S
t-
ri
t
c
1—
rr,
b
%
t
Cx.
nO
o
r^
c
•
•
*
f^
r
CM
<M
a
-3
r-v
C--
t^
■u^
•
ir,
vO
Os
r-
M
c
■LT,
•*
iH
NO
c
c>
-3
o
t^
o-
\r.
o
«*
-3
<7i
<r>
^
IT!
•
•
■UN
■Lr\
H
i-l
tx
CO
-3
r-
t^
f-
•
■LT
t^
o
t^
•«
r-l
■U".
«^
(H
vO
-a
QO
-3
>o
sO
O
-3
vC
<«
-J
«
<0
o-
C
U-.
CC
•
•
-UN
sO
c^
c
iH
U-,
t^
r-
c^
o
•
■VA
r-
Os
r-
•k
U-,
\A
«%
(H
vO
-3
«
-3
^
vO
m
J
</i
tB
Ov
vO
1
1
I
1
1
o
I
1
1
1.
iH
1
1
1
1
cb
r^
o-
c>
r^
-3
•
•
•
rr\
CC
O
UA
c
^
J
t^
■LT,
C
r-l
Cv.
r^
fH
r-{
««
H
r^
•«
•\
iH
r-
-a
r-t
CO
t^
<«
iH
r^,
«»
4»
Ix.
g
S
(x.
e-
^§^
?e§
^ga^
a;
■a:
?E^
£^
f- Sc? O U
p a: M ,
^
^lg
tfO
1: K 1-
r^ r w
a >
^
1
E.
-3U.
236
DC
Eh
•
_)
CVJ
CVJ
<5
Ox
LA
<i
e>-
r-l
(^
u\
CO
3
o
-3
-3
oo
_rr
z
1-4
i-l
oc
f»\
r^
z
iH
-*
CM
E- t^
2 CK
^^
E- JS
5 so
■H
iH
XA
O
r^
3 3
t^
U\
O
r^
r-\
S o
CN
X/N
CN
■LA
r^
U t.
iH
iH
vC
cv
r^
Q x:
rH
*3
w
0_3
^vO
►J o
O r-l
D-
1
O
r^
On
-3
-t
cn
r^
r^
C
C^
rH
M tn
o
a
r^
r^
rr,
-1 E-
r-4
C
cc
LA
o ce
r-f
iH
a, c
«: a.
2- w
«< a:
M
o ^
z <<
M O
Ox
i-H
vC
■LA
m
M
vO
■LA
CV
P^
r-l
•• e-
0-.
O
On
t^
CN
W Vj
iH
iH
CO
■LT,
-3
O M
iH
g^
C E-
cn tn
CD
o
c
iH
i-i
^
cc
C
00
LA
1
CO
iH
p^
C^
r^
1-1
CO
.3
rH
■LA
r-
o
C>J
CVJ
l»V
vO
C3\
'.A
<^
r-
C^
iH
t^
rH
C^:
(-(
iH
r-
CV.
■LA
fc
£
^
O-
o
rH
r~
P
C>0
r~\
Cs
-3
a:
Os
c\;
r^
CC
t^
<<
iH
1-1
vC
C
m
0-
rH
u.
Q
U
CO o
ga
M C
\A
1-1
iH
■LA
r-
6-"
^.
^-
vO
CO
l-t
r^
IT.
O
r^
Ei
i-{
^p
t- ^
M
^g
-3
*<
C
o
c>
^
^
CC
t-{
XA
fH
y
r-l
Cv.
&
CVJ
"i
i-t
1-1
■LTv
t-<
r^
r-t
fc *"
gf
fc
>-
>-i
u:
K
^
1
CC
O
3
|f
»: K
<
E^
b-
C
CO
2
E-
E-
C
^
M
E-
CO
M
E-
E-
co
C
oi
d
£
M
to
M
E-
<j:
E-
co
CVJ
e
-35-
237
ROBBERY INCIDENTS REPORTED TO THE F.B.I. FROM THE UNITED SOURCE;
ST-ATES UNDER fm' UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING SYSTEM F.B.I. UNIFORM CRIME REPORT - 1971
H
o
o.
CC
CO
1-1
O
-a
CC
CVJ
CO
v
1
C
:§
OS
CO
oc
ft
C
Co
UN
U-,
2f
o
C\i
•
CO
C\J
U-v
•
CO
CNJ
O
UN
■LA
1
1
i
it
<
NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS
PER YEAR
PERCENT OF
CUMUUTIVE
INCREASE
PERCENT OF
INCREASE
PER YEAR
-36-
238
o
&
a:
c
e
O
CO
•a:
-I
s P
• E-
O
M
E-
5 CO
S to
O
o
r-t
-3
U-,
«
t^
CO
•
•
?f
^
c
8
^0
V
^
o
•*
\r
v\
t^
^
•
•
Os
f-
_3
u\
I-I
rH
CO
iH
UN
O
o
-3
«
<>
•»
V
c
"jP
vO
c
•
OS
u^
•
iH
iH
Os
c^
-a
Q
o
oc
iN
u\
^
t
UN
•
UN
•
CM
I-i
OO
iH
f^
g
f-1
V
^
t^
•it
XT,
U\
«
r-l
•
sC
•
rH
■H
H
8
CJs
:g
*t
rH
1
1
OS
a
H
i-H
fe^5
o w «
fe^«
CO <:
r-> (/:
c- «: [£:
ill
lis
e
O O g
-37-
239
0-
O
c
o
cr.
E-
r
5:
fc
g
u- ir.
•
O
M
tZ
l-l
ffi
t-
•
k:
ti-
a
a;
E-.
C
fe
H
M
«
3
O
or;
tf
fT''
^
W
£
¥
s
^
e
ft:
CJ
tT
i
h
to
b
(K
«f
2
CD
•
(-1
o-
r-{
O
o
■LTN
OC
rH
•
-3
o
a
s
cc
V
•
CM
•
9;
C
o
til
•
c\.
V
U-,
•
OC
r-l
8
cc
cvj
H
•
CM
•
CM
C
C
•
•
i-i
CC
1
'
"
§
^
U; CO Oi
b-
C u: K
cr; «i:
E- «»; u;
?■ u: t^
K a:
C-" CJ (K
K s: (j-
(5 M a.
0-
b- Uh
C b^ K
^^^^
-38-
240
r-l
r-
CN
rH
1
e-
a:
£
w
Oi
g
a
o
s
a:
c
tr.
M
i
•
l-i
•
o
cc
o
t>«
•
H
sO
■yi
O
b.
t^
«%
o
•
CN
H
•
OS
iC
i-l
-3
-3
•O
O
Ov
g
o
«
o
8
V.
¥
r-
■LT,
•
o.
rn"
•
UN
i-i
CM
OS
r-
SO
o
q
>»"
■et^
gs
■^
XT.
•
•
E-p
o\
CO
t^
r-
iH
c^
r-l
XA
ff CO
Ix.
oo
O
M-g
o
• E-
o
■ W
\)«;
ff te
CO
CM
u^
o
• o
vO
%
•
•
fc 0-
o
CO
iH
o
w
iH
t^
CV
-3
W K
t--
6-' K
C M
E- «
o
8
V.
>(S.
6 r
r-
CM
■U-,
IT.
P cri
vO
««
•
•
K C
c^
1A
CO
cc
C &-
i-i
•LA
I-I
<-K
CL M
vO
SB
W fc
E- E
g^
8
eE
^
r^
•«
1
O Q
(>.
t^
&£
H
E-i W
^ ^
E <
b-
c t b;
P E-
b- W Oi
C W K
CO
C E- ■<
C. tt.
1- cr.
Sc
a:
EE M tt
6- «; K
fc E- <
&- «• b-
O tu
f5g.
b; -J ct
M E-
>"
o g o
0- o
3- M
^ " fe^
|ES
-39-
241
^o
c
CM
O
GO
CO
_c
CS'
O
•
•
o
•
•
•
r-
vr\
Bg
CO
CM
CM
o»
o
z >
O
OO
CM
<^
•^
<<
•*
M
•«
u\
CM
to
C\J
r^
o
U\
rr\
l-<
-3
CM
CM
On
H
<0
-3
CM
«*
<^
**
u\
Q Q
fa. CO iJ Z tzj
0 0 = 02
^3
•
CM
C
•
UN
W CO
■X.
Z-- O W UJ
E-. P( rs CD t-
•
ICN
r-l
CJv
-3
U~,
z^
MOUN
SAV
ICH
AVE
RECO
CO
CM
rH
C3N
-3
CM
«< >
O CO
<. X 3C
<«
f*
rH
>-J
^A
<
fa. CO Q
-1
O CO W
— <
/5
E- S S
■!l»
-1
?: , >
>fi.
Uft
t-K
«%
— "
p i-J o
r-"
C^
•
r^
<
G «< o
•
•
-3
CO
n
b; fc. tL;
faj o It:
r^
CM
>-l
A
a, 6-
<
e
, Sm
U\
CM
-J
a:
iJ E- pi P-
CM
-3
r^
On
< g E CN
^
U~>
O
•»
e- 5 5 ,H
c~-
•\
•^
rH
?^^^^
•\
UN
r^.
rH
1-1
f»N
O
OO
•a: faj M
«
<fi
iH
•»
Di
«
CM
o
vO
J'
kC
o
O
CNI
•
•
•
rH
CO E- p
rr\
CD
nO
UN
ggg
CM
CO
t^
-3
iH
ro
UN
oi O <:
•V
*,
o
O X CO
CM
vo"
nO
UN
«:
1-1
U^,
UN
•t
Vi
-3
CM
<0
c
fa; p-
-3
.J
rA
O C5^
CJ
H
J
o
^
5 i-i
CM
■LA
OO
u>
o
CM
5
g|
1
1
1
1
i
Od
3
fc
3
•5 E oi
-3
cc
-1
o
OC
•
rH
CO
•
-1
►-9 ij o
•
C^
•
CM
ri <
fn
rr\
UN
UN
g ^ f^
CM
rH
_3
t^
u
m
<«
•W
«e
^
fa.
3
O CO
s
iH
OC
CM
On
E-. W M
r-H
-3
•*
_3
p E «
F. £ cj
CM
On
NO
-3
t
z
CO
C
CO iH
;3 Ok
UN
CO
I-I
OC
U".
NO
-3
, i-H
•t
m.
U-,
r-\
>-3
< £
o
^
On
OO
H
t
^^
m
f^
t^
t-
rH
«5
Vi
)
E
>-<
cr-
3
or-
CJ fa-
\
g
O
g
1-1
>
ct:
B
>
-liO-
242
Ov
o
vO
CM
•
1
1-1
•
•
r-l
O^
-3
CO
CS.
•
f-l
CD
CM
•
+
UN
V!.
•
1-1
1
o
0^
•
1
CC
1
1
«
J
00
•
c
+
Os
2
records
incomplete
for this
period
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
OD
i-l
i
1
1
1
1
1
r
1
1
«
0- (2-
o
1:
5
c
c
►J
•a:
6-<
C
E-
11
0.^
-hi-
243
*
C\J
OJ
o
On
f^
CD
t^
r^
On
U\
Oo
«
iH
rH
i-l
-3
sO
iH
t^
r-i
00
_3
OO
CN
U\
I-l
CN
rH
r-i
\A
On
XA
r-l
O
O
-3
UN
C^
H>
-O
CN
CM
o.
vO
CO
r^
fn
r-i
u^
r-
rH
Cn
OS
u\
r-l
■^
t^
r-
\x\
r-l
o
C^
r-l
O
On
1-1
sC
CO
-3
r-l
cc
o
<»>
vO
CM
CM
r^
c*-\
C^
oo
r^
O
J
(-1
vO
O
\A
r-i
r-
r*N
CO
OO
O
t^
\r\
_3
NO
Os
O
u\
r^
CJN
r-i
O
<5s
■lA
r-l
f
eg
r^
■^
CM
r^
O
f-
rH
v\
r-i
H
O
"5
cc
OD
CM
vO
o^
\^
-3
-a-
ON
r-i
\A
NO
H
-3
OD
J
On
O
r^
OO
CO
CM
0\
u\
vO
iH
On
r-i
1A
vO
r-l
I-l
►J
>-
K
■a: >H
gg
c «■
►J
■a:
^
g
^
4i2-
244
i- t~-
«
CUvO
ta OS
C rH
tC "
O to
M E-'
•J Oi
c
»;
►J
«:
o
M
E-
CO
Q E-
M E-
CO
9
g
^
M V,
O
o to
M
o s
eg
w
O hJ w
w
■je
V
v
<; << o
d2 =3 z
CM
t--
o-
CM
•
•
•
•
gg^
r^
O
r—
-3
♦
1
+
+
<: «>! o
tjf
*
C~-
W
W>
^■i
CM
•
ir\
o
T-K
t^
rri
•
•
•
Ov
l-\
r\
t
vr\
rH
+
+
♦
■*ft
x/\
W.
w
W!
rH
•
^O
■LA
O
t^
rH
•
•
•
O,
CM
rA
-3
P-v
pH
1
r^
r^^
H
'
■f
+
Wt
o
%r
VI
V
O
•
r-{
vC
vO
t^
\A
•
•
•
a
rH
1
%^
=?
o
t>«
w^
V.
V,
Ov
t-\
CM
CM
p^
vO
m
•
•
•
a
^
CM
1
"f
1
>f^
-3
Vi
Wl
Wl
OD
•
vO
-3
prs
vO
CM
•
•
•
o
CM
r<\
<rs
r\
rH
♦
1
t
1
C^
IS
"i*"
r^
C5s
s
•
•
+
•
CM
♦
w.
m
%e
Wl
^
^
•
rH
lA
■^
o
•
•
•
Ov
r^
CM
r^
OC
r{
♦
rH
CM
i-{
+
♦
♦
^
VI
V
V
V\
oc
■o
OC
^
>o
•
•
•
•
«>i
r-\
f\
f\
c
rH
♦
+
+
►J
^>.
^«
(K
«*
a; o
g
lg
se
s«
El
E <
E-i O
fc M
£ ^
O
0-
•<
-li3-
245
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. , Annual Statistical Reports^ Indianapolis Police
Department, 196? through 1970
? . Fisk, Donald M, , The Indianapolis Police Fleet Plan,
October 1970, The Urban Institute, Washington, D. C.
3. , Operation of Police Vehicle Assignment, An
Indiananolis Police Departnrnt Publication
h, Indianapolis Police Department Budget Records,
1968 through 1972
5. Ibid (U)
6. Indiananolis City Controller's Records, 1968, 1970
7. Ibid (1>
8. , F. B. I. Uniform Crime Reports - 1971, August
1972, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C,
9. Ibid (8)
10. Indianapolis Police Department's Accident Review
Board Records, 1968 through 1972
II. Ibid (1)
12, , "Estimating the Costs of Accidents", Public
Safety Memos, National Safety Congress, 1969, Memo #113
13. Ibid (1)
-uu-
246
Chairman Pepper. I will ask Mr. Keating if he will be kind enough
to present the distinguished witness.
Mr. Keating ? ' ^
Mr. Keating. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity to introduce Carl Goodin and the
other representatives from Cincinnati who will be talking about the
Com-Sec program.
I might say this is the second opportunity I have had to introduce
Chief Goodin, the first occasion being made when he testified on
gun control, and he managed to come all the way to Washington with
a kit full of guns and nobody stopped him until he got in the Rayburn
Building.
Chief Goodin was selected to head the 1,000-member police force
in Cincinnati at the age of 37, after progressing through the ranks
of the police department. Having obtained a master's degree in police
science and administration from Michigan State University, Chief
Goodin has been thoroughly trained and educated for the position
he now holds. During his tenure as police chief, Carl Goodin has im-
plemented many innovative programs which have been accepted by
all areas of the Cincinnati community.
He has also developed and earned a high de^ee of confidence and
respect from the general public as he recognizes the many human
values which are an integral part of police work.
I am confident that Chief Goodin will continue to bring honor to
his chosen profession, to the city of Cincinnati, and to the Nation
as a whole.
We also have with us today Mr. Carl Lind, whom I have known for
more than 20 years, I suppose, in different capacities. He is the director
of the program management bureau of the Cincinnati Police Depart-
ment. Mr. Lind played a key role in the planning of the Com-Sec
program, as he had overall responsibility for coordinating the effort
within the police department to design a program that would be
meaningful and effective.
Captain Howard Espelage is also with the committee this after-
noon. He is the individual who commands police district 1, where the
Com-Sec program has been fully implemented. Captain Espelage has
overall control for the sectors which comprise that district. I am cer-
tain he can give the committee some helpful insight on how this pro-
gram is functioning.
Officer Lawrence Panno and Officer Richard Brand are also with
us today. They are two police officers who work daily in the Com-Sec
program as policemen on the beat, These policemen are actually
charged with the responsibility for making Com-Sec fulfill its mission.
Finally, Mr. Frank Yunger, president of Findlay Market Associa-
tion, has come before the committee today to give us a better view
of how Com-Sec has helped those businesses directly affected by this
new and innovative form of police protection.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this distinguished group of men from Cin-
cinnati will provide the committee with some valuable insight into
the program, and although it still is in the beginning stages, it offers
a great deal of hope for even better police protection in the communi-
ties throughout the United States.
I just want to say that, personally, I have been associated in a
professional fnanner, social manner, with these men over an extended
247
period of years and I have the highest regard and respect for them
and their ability.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much, Mr. Keating.
Chief Goodin, we are dehghted to have you and your able as-
sociates with us today.
Mr. Lynch, will you proceed.
Mr. Lynch. Chief Goodin, I believe you have a statement to
present to the committee. Would you do so now ?
PANEL OF CINCINNATI (OHIO) POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS,
ACCOMPANIED BY LOCAL BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE:
BRAND, RICHARD L., PATROLMAN;
ESPELAGE, HOWARD, CAPTAIN;
GOODIN, CARL V., CHIEF OF POLICE;
LIND, CARL A., DIRECTOR, PROGRAM MANAGEMENT DIVISION;
PANNO, LAWRENCE C, PATROLMAN; AND
YTJNGER, FRANK, PRESIDENT, FINDLAY MARKET ASSOCIATION
Statement of Carl V. Goodin
Mr. Goodin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Keating,
and distinguished members of the committee.
It is indeed an honor and a pleasure for us to appear before your
committee to discuss the very important issue of crime.
We believe the basic question to be addressed in this brief discussion
is: How can a police agency organize itself to deal more effectively
with its primary responsibilities in the coming years? A very com-
mon reply given in the United States today is "team policing."
Among the many programs called team policing, the common
denominator seems to be the assignment of a group of officers to patrol
a given area. We need to go much beyond this simplistic statement
in order to determine what there is in team policing which generates
some ray of hope for the future of policing. Therefore, the focus of
this paper will be to analyze the mechanisms which are present in
some team policing models which would enable a police agency to
more effectively deal with criminal victimization.
The objectives of police agencies are often described as being:
( 1 ) Prevention of crime ;
( 2 ) Protection of life and property ;
( 3 ) Suppression of criminal activity ;
(4 ) Apprehension and prosecution of offenders ;
( 5 ) Regulation of noncriminal conduct ; and
(6) Preservation of the public peace.
We have found that we are not uniformly effective in attaining
these objectives ; crime is still increasing despite our best efforts. The
President's Commission on Crime pointed this out and also indicated
that we cannot attain these objectives so long as police agencies are
expected to struggle with these problems in an atmosphere lacking
the assistance of the greater community.
The Conmiission also suggested a solution — team policing. Team
policing does not aim toward new objectives and goals — it is not
)ust a public relations program — in fact, the goals and objectives of
the police have stood the test of time. Team policing is designed to
95-158 0—73 — pt. 1 17
248
recognize that the attainment of these goals cannot be accomplished
by the police agency alone. Instead of operating in a vacuum, the
community, social and other governmental agencies, and society itself,
all play a role in carrying out the police function.
The aspects of team policing which are crucial for reducing criminal
victimization seem to be:
( 1 ) Consistent assignment ;
(2) Unification of control, responsibility ;
(3) Team decisionmaking power ;
(4) Development of the police officer as a generalist ; and
(5) Communications.
The consistent assignment of an officer to the same area allows the
officer to become familiar with that area and its people to a much
greater extent than is possible under a system of rotating assignments.
Consistent assignment tends to breed a proprietary interest in the
community on the part of the police officer once the officer recognizes
that present actions may cause problems for him in the future.
By unifying the control, responsibility, and supervision in an area,
the actions taken by police officers can become more consistent. By
developing a consistent, high level of service, a major roadblock to
communication is removed. We all too often find a high level of fear
attached to situations with which we are unfamiliar.
Certainly citizens must experience great anxiety in their contacts
with police officers, considering the current practices of many police
agencies. Many different units, each having its own specialized func-
tion and its own line of command, may operate in the same small area
in the same day.
As an example, in a very small geographical area, indeed, the
citizens could be exposed to a traffic specialist, an investigator, a patrol
officer, and tactical unit officer, all within the same timeframe.
Coupling a simplified control structure with team decisionmaking
power enables the police to develop plans on the basis of local level
information which should be more in keeping with community needs.
This approach allows the officer on the street more latitude in dealing
with the problems he faces. The more consistent performance and
greater commitment developed through such a system should create
an environment in which police officers and community residents can
develop an effective alliance against crime.
Another element of this plan is the development of a generalist
officer. A generalist should be capable of delivering the complete spec-
trum of police services, thus providing more effective followthrough
concerning the delivery of those services. An officer who has had ade-
quate training and experience should be able to carry out investigations
of all types as well as provide the routine services expected of patrol
officers.
All of the above factors should also tend to improve communications
both within the agency as well as between its representatives and the
community. The current structure of police agencies is a great deter-
rent to the effective communication of information which is of im-
portance to the agency. By simplifying the chain of command and
responsibility, the major obstacle to internal communication is re-
moved. Furthermore, the policy agency itself must, take the first step
in improving its relations with the community. The development of
stable lines of communications is of great importance in encouraging
249
mutual trust, understanding, and aid among the police and the
community.
Providing an officer the opportunity to understand the community,
allowing a group of officers to define their own problems, goals, and
policies, developing a generalist notion of policing and improving
communications should improve the outlook of policing in the future.
Perhaps none of this discussion is new to any of us, but we must
begin to look for new methods of providing police services. The ever-
increasing problems that face us serve as prima facie evidence that we
have not yet obtained the ultimate goals of policing.
The need to find new solutions is to become even more urgent as our
society clamors ever more vociferously for better police service. Even
if crime does not overwhelm us in the coming years, public sentiment
will, unless viable methods of policing are developed. The reorganiza-
tion which has been outlined in these pages is one method which hopes
to achieve the vital alliance among the police and the community
needed to promulgate the more effective delivery of police services.
Cincinnati, in keeping with these principles, has developed, has
designed and implemented a form of team policing called community
sector team policing. For short, we call it Com-Sec. It is known in the
community as Com-Sec.
It has as its overall goal to improve the effectiveness of the services
to the community. This overall goal has been broken down by people
in the community, by the police officers who deliver the services, into
several impact goals and they are to, very briefly, reduce the level of
criminal victimization of both people and property, to improve the
understanding by the police and sensitivity to the people they serve,
to develop a proprietary interest in the police for the safety and
welfare of the people, improve citizen cooperation with the police in
crime prevention, detection, and apprehension, and develop in the
citizens a sense of trust and close identity with the police officers.
Along with this are a couple of other impact goals which have, I am
sure, importance to this committee, and one of the major reasons this
is a funded project by the Police Foundation based in Washington, is
that they hope to develop some innovations in patrol and in policing,
the basic delivery of police service to the community, which can be
transported then to other cities and other police agencies throughout
the country.
Some of the Com-Sec design concepts which are highlighted in our
system of team policing are these. We had divided the district 1 area
geographically into six sectors. These six sectors conform naturally
to neighborhood boundaries and neighborhood boundaries are con-
ceived by those people who live and work in those areas.
One of the highlights of Com-Sec is the fact the basic operational
unit provides all police services to the residents and the business people
in that sector, with the exception of the investigation of homicide. The
other services totally are delivered by those police officers.
We have realined the supervisory structure from the traditional
three shifts, or three watches, or three relays commanded by the
lieutenant and supervising personnel and changing every so often, and
so forth, to one in which the leader, the commander of the shift, or
the commander of that area, of the Com-Sec, is a lieutenant, he is a
team leader.
250
He is responsible for the delivery of police service over a 24-liour day,
365-days-a-year operation. He has a great deal of flexibility in both
the assignment of personnel, equipment, and methods to meet the
needs of the people. He may assign his officers, deploy his officers, on
a proportional need basis, so that there is a minimum representation
of uniformed police during certain hours of the day, and others there
is a saturation patrol. He and the team membei-s make a decision as to
methods of patrol, whether they will be on foot, by motor scooter,
automobiles, rooftop surveillance, undercover surveillance, or what-
ever methods may be provided by the patrol officers and team
members.
Essentially those are the outstanding features of Com-Sec. The
expanded scope of responsibility and authority permit the team police-
men to do the preliminary investigations and followup investigations
on all crimes except homicide. They can make direct referrals to
social agencies, to circumvent the overcrowded criminal justice sys-
tem, the court system.
They can devise and operate various kinds of patrol procedures and
they take part in the decisionmaking process of the team.
They meet at least once a month on a formal basis with the resi-
dents and working people in their sector to discuss the problems,
mutual problems, identifying needs of the people, and working to-
gether to resolve how best to meet those needs. And, certainly, the
day-to-day relationships with the people are those features of the Com-
Sec program that we hope will achieve the kinds of cooperation so
vital to reducing crime in Cincinnati.
We think this is probably the most outstanding project with which
we are involved. We have a list of about 30 others that will be avail-
able to your staff, but we feel this probably has more importance for
the committee than any others.
We have with us personnel who have responsibility for the manning
of this, as Congressman Keating pointed out, the district commander.
And we brought the live article to the committee in the form of these
two police officers who actually deliver the police service, and a recip-
ient of those services, Mr. Yunger.
We stand ready to try to respond to any questions by the committee.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, if it would be agreeable, I think it might
facilitate matters if we could quite briefly hear from Officers Brand
and Panno, as to what it is they do as community sector policemen
which is different from that the regular patrolman will do. Perhaps
Captain Espelage could describe his duties and from there, we could
go to individual questions.
Chairman Pepper. Go right ahead.
Statement of Richard L. Brand
Mr. Brand. Basically, we do the same thing in Com-Sec that we do
throughout the rest of the Cincinnati Police Division. However, the
big difference is we have more time to do the things that we need to
do. For example, in Com-Sec the basic means of patrol is foot patrol.
That means that several men throughout district 1 are assigiied to
foot patrol. If a man is assigned to an automobile, to automobile pa-
trol, he takes his automobile, he takes it out someplace, he parks it,
he gets out of his automobile, he walks around on foot, he meets dif-
251
ferent members of the community, he stops and talks to businessmen,
things like that.
If a crime happens we go to the crime scene. We not only do a police
investigation but we also do followup investigations.
Prior to Com-Sec, mainly, we were what you would call report
takers. We would go to the scene, make some type of investigation ; we
would make a report, and that would be about the last we would
hear of it. This way there is a followup investigation. AVe are respon-
sible for everything.
Many times in the past, prior to Com-Sec, if a citizen needed a
particular type of ipolice service we would refer (them to someone else,
refer them to some other portion of the police department to get that
kind of service. But now we don't do that ibecause we provide all of
the services, we don't refer anybody any place else. We are the people
that provide all types of service.
It used to be that if you were having a problem with someone, if a
particular family on the beat you ,patroled was always fighting on
Saturday night, or things along that nature, there was nothing we
could do with them. We couldn't send them any iplace. The only thing
we could do was put them in jail. But now we have the capacity, in-
stead of putting them in jail, we can refer them ,to an agency where
they can get perhaps what we hope is help. So we don't continually
respond back to one location, time in and time out, with nothing you
can do. We are trying also to get them help.
I guess I could go on and on. There are a lot of different things we
do now we icould never do in the past.
Mr. Lynch. I w^onder if we could hear from your partner now.
For purposes of the record, are you Officer Panno ?
Statement of Lawrence C. Panno
Mr. Panno. Yes, sir.
In addition to what Patrolman Brand said, operating under the
function of the complete service policeman, when we are summoned
to a scene and investigate a crime, we become better policemen, better
investigators, and better citizens under the Com-Sec philosophy.
We improve ourselves because we know more about the investiga-
tive techniques from motor patrolmen or just from experience. We
take the case from the time it happens until the time of the conviction
in court — we hope conviction in court.
Before, when we responded to the scene, we gave the emergency as-
sistance that was needed, then, wrote up the report, and, usually, on
felony cases, it was turned over to our crime bureau. Now the police-
man that responds investigates that crime, and I believe it is working
out real good.
It has made us all a little bit better investigators. It makes us work
harder and does build a iproprietary interest in the service that we
deliver at that time.
As Patrolman Brand said, we are basically all foot patrolmen.
Polarization got us a>way from the public ; and that is one of our goals,
to try and get closer to the public. Most of the officers still have an
automobile. We drive it to our beat and get out and walk as much as
we can. In the past, especially during the summer months, we re-
252
sponded to so many radio runs we barely had time to wave to someone
going by. Now, under the Com-Sec philosophy, with a few more police-
men out in a certain area, we can stop and talk with the merchants
and the people in the street.
We stay iwithin our district or our sector iboundaries. Before we
would be assigned to one specific area and 60 ipercent of our calls would
be out of that area. It is kind of hard to keep your finger on the pulse
of that neighborhood when you are spending 60 percent of your time
somewhere else.
Mr. Lynch. Are you in uniform all of this time ?
Mr. Panno. I work in uniform. I work in plainclothes. That is the
flexibility the concept has. If I get a line on some narcotics case or
some burglar working in the area, I go to my team leader and we de-
cide, first of all, if I can afford to be put in plainclothes. If we can,
then I get a chance to follow through on that investigation, or on that
lead.
Com-Sec is helping us out. Just in the past month or so, since it has
been in full swing, we have gotten a better response from the public,
more tips on things that are going on in the neighborhood. The people
feel closer to the policeman and hence feel more secure.
I heard the comment several times that these are "our" policemen,
not "a'- policeman.
Mr. Keating. Years ago when you had indigents on the beat, usually
elderly persons who had no home, they would ask the police officer to
lock them up so they could go out to the workhouse to get cleaned up,
to get a few meals, and so on. What do you do with that person now ?
Mr. Panno. The person falls in several different categories. The
ones that will accept help we can send to the Salvation Army Post or
give them advice on places where to go. But they have to help them-
selves. We give them the available avenues to help, rather than be
locked up during the winter months or sleep in the alleys at night. But
we do send them to the Salvation Army and other agencies that can
care for them and can help them along.
Mr. Keating. You are better equipped with that knowledge, being
part of the Com-Sec proa:ram and knowing people in the neighbor-
hood you are working with, so you can give them these alternatives.
Whereas, before, they bring them in and put them in the station, and
the judge would send them out to the workhouse where they could get
cleaned up and get a few meals and they would be back on the streets
again.
Mr. Panno. Yes, sir.
Mr. Keating. So this program has more effect, and in a new manner
may solve that problem.
Mr. Panno. Yes, sir.
Mr. Keating. Not completely ?
Mr. Panno. Solving the problem on the long basis that Patrolman
Brand hit on softly, but in the past, when we responded to a family
fight or a person that was down and out, had no means of support or
no place to go
Mr. Keating. Could you tell people who don't have the background,
what "down and out" means ?
Mr. Panno. Just broke and no place to go or food to eat. Down and
out drunk, maybe. But in the past, we had always taken care of it
253
during the 10-minute timespan. You have a problem, this man is on
the street, how do you get rid of this man ? You lock him up since he is
drunk or is a vagrant. Since then, they abolished the vagrancy laws
in Cincinnati and I am not too sure it was a good one to begin with.
But the time of problem solving we have is a long-range basis,
rather than locking the guy up every other day throughout the year, or
6 months, send him some place where they can help him. Maybe they
will only have two or three contacts with him until they instill in him
the way to help himself, or they can help him.
Mr. Keating. In the "Over-the-Rhine" area, which is part of the
area you are covering in Com-Sec, do you have confrontations between
Appalachian groups and maybe black groups, or some other composi-
tion ? Is it easier for you to meet that situation and solve it without a
flareup because you know the principals involved ?
Mr. Panno. Yes. Many times when they see a police officer that
they know responding to the scene, they automatically calm down a
little bit. Through past experience with the policeman, through the
policeman knowing this individual. There are a lot of people that get
loud and boisterous that are harmless. There are some people that are
quiet and quite dangerous. As a policeman, you get to know these
people, their moods, and how they will react.
It is a lot easier to deal with them. Again, they know the policeman
and they know how to deal with the policeman, also.
Mr. Keating. Whereas you were a third force before, you now
become an intermediary.
Mr. Panno. That is right. Many times we responded to break up a
fight and both parties turned on us simply because of the lack of
knowledge and communication.
Mr. Keating. That has diminished as a result of the program.
Officer Brand?
Mr. Brand. A couple of other points I would like to make. One of
the biggest things is that the patrolman has a voice in the decision-
making process of the police department and in the decisionmaking
process of your team. When the team meets we have a chance to put
our views forward.
There is one thing that is in the program that is very good from a
patrolman's standpoint, and that is what is called an acting team
leader. When there is no supervisor working in a particular sector you
work in, a patrohnan is appointed as an acting team leader and he as-
sumes all of the responsibilities of a supervisor, with a few exceptions.
Also, Chief Goodin touched on this briefly. When you are assigned
to a certain area, it does breed a type of ownership in you for that
particular area and when a crime is committed in that area, or to use
a slang expression, it does gripe you so you have a greater interest
in solving the crime than you had before.
Mr. Keating. Do you have any statistical impact. Chief, on the
results of your program to date ?
Mr. LiND. Mr. Keating, we looked at the record and Com-Sec has
been in existence just such a short period of time that we were unable
to get any impression in connection with any changes in crime. Crime
in Cincinnati has been in very minor decline. The decline began
sometime in 1972. And because of the fluctuations occurring in the
crime pattern we are really unable to make any decision.
254
Mr. Winn. May I ask a question?
Chairman Pepper. Yes.
Mr. Winn. To what do you attribute the slight decline in crime in
1972?
Mr. Keating. Obviously, the excellent performance of the Cincin-
nati Police Department.
Mr. LiND. We took some special measures to deal with the problems
of crime toward the end of the year. There were some fluctuations in
crime. It appeared to be stable in 1972, compared to 1971. But in late
November, because of the unusual seasonal crime experience at that
time, street crime particularly, the chief instituted a task force which
was representative of the entire division, drawing on the various
bureaus and sections for their personnel.
This was an 80-man task force and its principal mission was to go
out on the street, selecting those areas which had been target areas
for victimization, and concentrate the special task force.
As we reduced crime in this 5-week period of time considerably, we
reduced our robberies that we had projected by 50 percent, and there
were also other interesting things that occurred. It seems crime was
depressed, all index crime, during a period of time and our crime
overall declined 5 percent. A 4-percent decline is found in the index of
larceny; 1 percent in the auto theft; with a decline in aggravated
assault and in murder.
But burglary and robbery for the year were stable. They did not
decline. We think that a special effort toward the end of the year,
put us on the minus side.
Mr. Lynch. I point out that Mr. Carl Lind, while he is a civilian
as I understand it, at this time has long years of experience with the
Cincinnati Police Department and is head of the program manage-
ment bureau in that department. He was one of the architects of this
plan and worked closely with the police foundation in formulating
the proposal.
I wonder if Mr. Lind could briefly tell us what position of this
grant from the police foundation will be involved with evaluation
work on the project.
Statement of Carl A. Lind
Mr. Lind. We received two awards from the police foundation.
We received the planning grant of $478,100 in October of 1971. And
in July of 1972 we received an action grant of $1.9 million. Now, the
evaluation program is being conducted at two levels. The urban
institute, a research and evaluation organization based here in Wash-
ington, is doing a long-term evaluation of Com-Sec. The cost of that is
close to $400,000.
We are doing a short term, using in-house personnel, to conduct
our evaluation.
Mr. GooDiN. If I may add just a comment to Carl's statement
about our response to the pending dramatic increase in street crime and
armed robberies, and so forth, toward the end of the year, this really
was a four-point involvement in the community, the media, and the
police.
Through Carl's operation in the analysis unit they predicted there
would be a dramatic increase in the number of robberies and street
255
crimes during the holiday season. I met with the Media Advisory
Committee in Cincinnati, which is sort of an ad hoc group of repre-
sentatives from every member of the print and electronic media in
Cincinnati, to discuss this problem.
We decided on sort of a task force approach from the police stand-
point and asked their assistance in making Cincinnati safer in the
coming days. The media, there is no question about it, spent thousands
of dollars on air time, prime air time, to instruct and educate citizens
on how to harden the target, both from their physical person stand-
point and from their own residence and business standpoint.
They publicized the task force, the arrests it was making, and so
on. The police canvassed 2,400 business establishments in that period
of time in high-crime areas and gave them literature and also person-
to-person instruction on how to harden the target.
We met witli the municipal level courts and they agreed in those
instances where we would bring in people who were multiple offend-
ers, repeat offenders, they would set a sufficiently high bond to keep
them off the street. That was done and through that cooperative effort,
we feel we reduced crime dramatically during that period of time,
although certainly those task forces are short range, we feel Com-Sec
has long-range implication.
Mr. Keating. May I ask one more question?
Chairman Pepper. Yes.
Mr. Keating. Mr. Yunger, could you give the citizens' and business-
men's viewpoint of the Com-Sec program, as you see it?
Statement of Frank Yunger
Mr. Yunger. I have in the past attended three Com-Sec meetings,
and as have members of my association, which is the Findlay Market
Association. Findlay Market is a national historical association and
we are proud to be a part of this area.
Many oldtimers in this old marketplace have always said the
foot patrolman is the thing to prevent crime — now, since we have
foot patrolmen in the area, I have noticed the close contact between
the partolman and merchant. Now the merchants realize greater se-
curity, knowing a patrolman is close by. This patrolman has a personal
radio so he can call for help if needed.
There has been in the past, before this started, many, many cases of
window breaking. We have furniture stores and other merchandise
stores in the area subject to this destruction of property.
I can see there has been a drastic reduction in purse snatching and
window breaking, burglary, and similar crimes. I think our police
department is to be commended on what they have done to this point
and I see nothing but good things for the future.
Statement of Howard Espelage
Mr, EsPELAGE. I would like to respond. All Cincinnati policemen
have equipment, what we call personalized radio. This enables any
of the policemen, regardless whether in cars or on foot, to respond
anywhere, and they can be recallable from any location. Even thougli
a man is assigned to a car, he can actually park the car and still be
recallable and be on foot patrol.
256
Mr. Lynch. Chief Goodin, you were in the audience when Chief
Churchill testified he has 140 patrol cars, single-man cars. And if I
recollect his testimony properly, he does not employ foot patrolmen.
It seems to me, in essence, your young patrolmen here are telling us
your philosophy is directly opposite to that. Would you comment
on that?
Mr. GooDiN. It is substantially different in the sense that Indianap-
olis and most other police agencies equip the automobile or the vehicle
with a radio, which in essence anchors the policeman to that unit. We
equip policemen with the radio. We have no radios in automobiles, or
on motorcycles, or anything else.. The policeman carries it and he never,
never is, in essence, out of service for an emergency call.
Mr. Lynch. Excuse me.
With that radio he carries, can he communicate with other foot pa-
trolmen as well as the base ?
Mr. Goodin. He can communicate with other policemen and the
base station. It is a six-channeled unit, bought and paid for by the
citizens of Cincinnati. And, really, quite sincerely, has been the tech-
nological advance of this in team policing that has convinced Cin-
cinnati to experiment with, and be innovative in, terms of patrol strat-
egies and things of that nature.
Mr. Lynch. Could you tell us. Chief, why you selected district 1
as the sector for this experiment ?
Mr. GooDiN. It is a high-crime area. It has a mix, and sort of
services as a microcosm for the city. It is composed of the downtown
business district, black neighborhoods, it has the poor white Appa-
lachian neighborhood, it has a rather affluent neighborhood on the
hill overlooking Cincinnati, and it sort of serves, in terms of crime,
as a good composite of crime in the city.
It boils it down to one- fourth of the total workload for the Cin-
cinnati Police Division. We felt in the experiment if we can prove
Com- Sec successful in district 1, it will work anywhere.
Mr. Lynch. I know the members of the committee will have some
questions for you, especially Mr. Keating. I would like to ask Captain
Espelage, if he would, to describe his role as the commander of this
unit; how it differs from your past experience. Captain, with the de-
partment, and what progress you think it is making in reducing
crime.
Mr. Espelage. My role mainly is that of coordinator. I have six
police departments under my control and I have to pull them all to-
gether as a district operation. I act as an adviser to the team leaders
and, of course, all of the paper flow goes to and from my office to
upstairs, the chief's office, to other districts, et cetera.
I really have been enthused about this thing since March 4, 1973,
for the simple reason the men have really innovated us down there.
Of course, it is too early to tell, but from the enthusiasm put forth
by the men I think it is really going to be the plan of the future.
Chairman Pepper. Any questions ?
Mr. Rangel. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Winn ?
Mr. Winn. No questions.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. I just want to again compliment the chief and mem-
bers of his staff for doing for my city and the rest of the citizens of
257
Cincinnati such a fine job in trying to innovate and work with the
people in the community in a very effective manner. Do you have
any other plans you want to tell us about ?
Mr. GooDiN. As I mentioned, we have about 30 other odd projects,
which are conventional in scope, innovative in terms of the criminal
justice units, which we are instituting, designed to improve the flow
of the offender from detection and apprehension through the system.
To track him, we have criminal justice information systems which
are computerized, and I heard you ask the previous witness whether
we need to make this information available to the public.
Indeed, it will be available to the media on computer printouts all
the way through the system. We feel that, to support something Mr.
Keating said earlier, I sincerely believe that there is a tremendous
amount of help that is needed, not only in terms of crime, but train-
ing and management response in the court system and the other
parts of the system.
We need help as well and we have seen this in Com-Sec; to improve
one part of the system dramatically so their effectiveness increases the
impact and clogs up the other end of the system and we go back in a
circle. Unless tlie other components of the justice system are brought
along at the same pace we are going through a revolving door kind of
situation.
Mr. Keating. Let me make one comment. The computer system we
have in the community, would you like to comment on that ?
Mr. GooDiN. Yes, sir. This is a countrywide computer system. It is a
shared system and one which is made up of the components. It has a
law enforcement component which is countywide, 39 separate police
agencies within Hamilton County — Cincinnati being the largest — and
it is a shared system among all of those police agencies.
There is another component which deals with the county administra-
tive system, the court system, welfare system, things of this nature,
which are countywide. Another component which deals with the city of
Cincinnati, computerizing payroll records and other administrative
matters such as that. This is a system, the law enforcement component,
which is paid for through a renewal levy by the voters of Hamilton
County, and has its primary emphasis and operational data for the
policeman on the street.
Our police officers with portable radios can make an inquiry through
the computer center, statewide, for our own records, statewide, and
through the FBI's National Crime Center, from the alley where they
are talking to a complainant. They need not go to a phone or to an in-
stallation to make that inquiry. They can do it right at the scene.
Mr. Lynch. Chief, I guess there are several areas we have not yet
touched on. It is my understanding that your teams, the community
sector teams, hold monthly meetings out in the neighborhoods in which
they are policing. Could you describe those for us? Tell us what takes
place at one of those meetings ?
Mr. Panno. Our community section meetings, what we call them,
■and every month at the same time and the same location, we
have a community meeting. We invite all of the public who
wish to attend to come and the policemen that are involved in policing
that area, the Com-Sec policemen, go to the meeting.
We start out with a formal-type meeting, just to get things going.
When I say "formal," I mean the policemen made the agenda. After
258
we got things going, got some people coming in, we changed it to where
half was run by the policemen, and the other half more or less the citi-
zens themselves.
We got suggestions on speakers they wanted to hear and we got
movies on accident information and burglaries. We brought one of our
K-9 dogs down. The policemen themselves give lectures and instruc-
tions on how to secure homes against burglars and housebreakers, how
to better protect themselves out in the street, to guard against street
robberies. How to protect their automobile and the packages or articles
they have in there. There are numerous types of ways to help them help
themselves and help us.
Mr. Lynch. What kind of public turnout do you get at those meet-
ings ?
Mr. Panno. They vary. Depending on the geographical location, the
weather conditions. Our biggest meeting has been when we had inci-
dents within the community that there might be a little hostility be-
tween two groups or between one group and the police. But they have
always, in my opinion, helped settle those hostilities that cut off future
hostilities.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
Chief, could you tell us, or could one of the gentlemen here tell us.
what criteria you used to select officers for this program ?
Mr. GooDiN. I will reply very briefly. We used existing personnel in
the district. The additional officers that were assigned, to make sure
for evaluation purposes we had a proper blend of people, of both poor
performers and average and outstanding performers, we assured that
by selection of those people who were on what we call a rotation assign-
ment, those duties to be rotated throughout the police division, through
the six police divisions.
So we selected a broad blend of those people so the previous rating
levels represent fairly well the entire range of policemen in Cincinnati.
We provided to all the Com-Sec officers a series of training exposures
and interpersonal relations and philosophies of Com-Sec and things of
that nature; technical training such as crime scene searches, finger-
printing, things of that nature, being conducted among the teams
themselves.
Mr. Lynch. In other words, the selection criteria in part was used
to facilitate individual performance evaluation later on. You have in
essence a cross section, as it were, of the department.
Mr. GooDiN. That is correct.
Mr. Lynch. What kind of morale effect has this program had on the
overall police operations, in your department as a whole ?
Mr. GooDiN. I think it has had a very stimulating effect. There have
been some negative indicators of morale, but overall, I would say the
morale of the Cincinnati Police Division, if measured by all of the ac-
cepted indexes of high morale — response to the problem, willingness
to work overtime, numbers of activities in which they are engaged for
the benefit of the division — is the highest it has ever been in our
history.
I would say morale is high. If there is grumbling within the division,
it is like in the military. I was told as a military man, if there isn't some
grumbling, the morale is low. It was based primarily on the belief by
some of the other commanders, Com-Sec would rob them of their best
259
personnel and they would be stripped of numbers of people so they
could not deliver adequate services to the community.
This was found not to be the case. Through some adjustments with-
in the di\ision, we disbanded the traffic section considerably ; we do not
have a tactical unit as most cities do ; and we are adhering to the gen-
eralized concept in Cincinnati. This then convinced the commanders
they had the same proportion of personnel in the division as district
1. So that sort of negated a lot of the negative obstacles that had been
placed in the path of Com-Sec implementation.
Just the planning and design of it, the involvement of people — we
involved officers from cadets, patrolmen, all the way through the
ranks — in the actual design and planning and implementation of this
project. It is truly a Cincinnati Police Division project. These two
officers here were involved in writing the guidelines and how to imple-
ment them. The fellows who are actually going to have to do the work,
wrote the rules, so to speak.
It is their program ; it is not something that came down from the
ivory tower. It is a police division project interspersed with citizen
cooperation, citizen input, policemen. It is their program and if en-
tliusiasm is any indication of success, it is successful already.
Mr. Lynch. In reading your proposal it became apparent — and
1 assume it was Mr. Lind that made a very strong point — in programs
of this nature that frequently they are developed by people who, in
your term, are "ivory tower" types and not policemen. xVpparently that
was not the case.
Mr. GooDiN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lyxch. Chief, earlier this afternoon, you heard Chief Churchill
indicate that while he only has 1.7 policemen per thousand population,
he did not feel a need for additional police. You have, I believe, some-
tliing in the neighborhood of 2.5 police per thousand inhabitants. That
is the standard metropolitan area figure, not the Cincinnati figure. I
assume it is somewhat close to actuality, however.
Mr. GooDiN. That is a close figure and that really is total police
employees.
Mr. Lynch. I understand that.
Mr. GooDiN. I was delighted to hear IVIr. Churchill, who is a friend
of mine, say he didn't need persomiel. He is the first chief I met who
said that. In Cincinnati we need 244 sworn people, additional, to im-
plement Com-Sec. This is based on hard data that was gathered on
all time spent in servicing citizen calls and a built-in component for
police-citizen interaction, positive police-citizen action.
Mr. Lynch. An additional 244 men ?
Mr. GooDiN. Yes, based on 1972 data.
Mr. Lynch. Do you have present plans to implement Com-Sec on a
city wide basis ?
Mr. GooDiN. We have a plan that developed, that if proved suc-
cessful, based on our evaluation or whatever modifications need
to be made, we are convinced, philosophically, it is the right approach.
We have asked for that number of personnel, to be granted over a
o-year period, 76 for this year, with the design in mind to implement
the team policing principle throughout the city.
Whether or not we will get them next year we do not know. We
have to go on a year-to-year basis.
260
Mr. Lynch. One more question. How is the action money from the
Police Foundation being used ? Is that paying for any of your Com-
Sec personnel ?
Mr. GooDiN. It is paying for 62 persoimel.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much. No more questions.
Mr. KJEATiNG. Just a couple of questions. Wliat is your per capita of
uniformed policemen per thousand population, which, I believe, was
the reference points made by Chief Churchill ?
Mr. GooDiN. It is a little better than two.
Mr. Keating. About 2.1 ?
Mr. GooDiN. Something like that. Yes, sir.
Mr. Keating. You said you needed 244 uniformed policemen ?
Mr. GooDiN. Uniformed policemen.
Mr. Keating. What do you need to back up those personnel ?
Mr. GooDiN. I think with our civilian levels, ratio levels increased
substantially during the past 2 or 3 years, to the point that I think with
a minimum of civilian personnel, about 60 civilian personnel, we can
maximize the civilians in the police division and accomplish the team
policing philosophy throughout the city. About 60 civilians.
Mr. Keating. If you ran two recruit classes a year, which I guess
is about as many as you can run — can you run more than that ?
Mr. GooDiN, We can run them continuously now. We have different
academy facilities.
Mr. Keating. You can actually get an increment of 75 in 1 year?
Mr. GooDiN. Yes, sir. Easily.
Mr. Keating. Do you have enough apiDlicants in order to meet this
need?
Mr. Goodin. Yes, sir; we do. We have enough applicants and we
pay our starting police officers almost $10,000 a year. Roughly, $10,000
a year. And we have enough applicants. We draw not from the un-
employed, but from the employed.
Mr. Keating. With maximum operation, how long would it take
you to add 244 police to do the job you feel should bo done?
Mr. GooDiN. About 2i/^ years.
Mr. Keating. Fine. This also means you would have more ser-
geants, more lieutenants, more supervisory teams?
Mr. GooDiN. Yes, sir. And they are built into the 244. Those are all
sworn personnel, all ranks.
Mr. Keating. You would end up with two more assistant chiefs?
Mr. GooDiN. They just go up through the rank of lieutenant. We
would not increase the ranks above that of lieutenant.
Mr. Keating. Is this because of the Com-Sec program or is this
because of the combination of utilization of Com-Sec plus the difficulty
of policing cities the size of Cincinnati with this mix ?
Mr. GooDiN. The combination of policing a city the size of Cincin-
nati with the problems that are unique to Cincinnati, hilly terrain,
things of this nature. And the fact that we know for the first time we
are able to say we need "«" number of man-hours to deliver the called-
for services in Cincinnati.
And that can be about a third less than that figure, just to meet the
called-for services, and we can do it. But we feel the citizens of Cincin-
nati in their cooperative spirit that seems to be unique to that area, for
some reason, that we can do just about whatever we want in terms of,
261
lowering the crime rate, with that additional time for the oiRcer to meet
with the citizen in a nonthreatening manner, to solicit his cooperation
in crime control and crime prevention.
Building those factors in, which are extremely important, the num-
ber comes to 244.
Mr. Keating. There is always some additional requirement. You
need, say, 60 civilian personnel to help back it up, and you need an in-
crease in sergeants and lieutenants. What about the mechanical equip-
ment ? Will you need an increase in cars, et cetera. ?
Mr. GooDiN. Radios, personalized radios ; yes, sir.
Mr. Keating. I remember that radio situation very well. We got in
on that.
Then you feel we would be at the optimum level in the city of Cin-
cinnati ?
Mr. GooDiN. Yes, sir ; I do.
Mr. Keating. Do you have a figure that it cost to put a policeman
in uniform with all of the backup personnel ? Is there a cost to the city
that you can figure out ? Fully equipped, basic salary, after he has be-
come a patrolman, after recruit training, what does it cost per patrol-
man ? Do you have that figure ?
Mr. Go'oDiN. About $17,000. That would include the first year's sal-
ary. The first year is training. The entire year is considered a training
program in our department, as a probationary period.
Mr. Keating. Because you are really making a professional man.
What kind of technical equipment do you feel that you might need to
carry out the mission of the police department that is still on the mar-
ket that you might not presently have ?
Mr. GooDiN. The other members of my staff can feel free to comment.
I mentioned the radios. We would like to experiment with some digital
computers. We are in the process now of ordering equipment that is
available and we have, through LEAA grants, a report system which
is fully automated in that the policeman who takes the report to the
citizen, if you report your car stolen, the policeman would write that
data down and give it to some civilian at the station who would type
it into a video data terminal and it would be sent out to all of the units
in the city. At the same time that particular auto theft would be scored
for uniform crime reporting, all done electronically through the com-
puter system.
We have a need for that. Our needs are a little greater than initially
estimated with LEAA, Again, I might add, this is a first project of
its kind, in that the uniform crime reporting procedures would be auto-
matically done.
Mr. Keating. Could you use the base system Mr. Atkinson has and
build on that to develop your digital computer?
Mr. GooDiN. Yes, sir; this whole program is built on that.
Mr. Keating. Just complements that ?
Mr. GooDiN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Keating. When the radio system went in, it had the effect of
increasing the number of patrolmen, by reason of communication, by
about 100, 125 — I might be wrong on that, but it had the result of
effectively increasing the number of patrolmen. If you had the sort of
system that would reduce the paperwork and civilian backup would
that increase the effective force of your department ?
262
Mr. GooDiN. Yes, sir ; it will. I don't have the exact man-hours with
me unless Carl might have them. But I do have this kind of figure.
We spend the equivalent of 40 street policemen awaiting trials in
the court. If we could do away with the delays of policemen waiting
to testify we could effectively put about 40 more policemen on the
street.
Mr. Keating. This goes back to the old indication that so many
people have given to me, that the policemen would not have to come
in for a second court appearance.
Mr. GooDiN. That is on that innovative kind of system.
Mr. Keating. That has been something the police division has been
wanting to do for some time.
Mr. GooDiN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Keating. Is there any likelihood you can get this support from
the prosecutor, the counsel, and the judiciary .to team develop that?
Mr. GooDiN. We can see some road signs for real dramatic improve-
ments in the courts in Hamilton County. Cooperative arrangements
heretofore not even thought possible are being worked out. We have
our police officers working on committees with judges and their staff
to develop procedures to expedite the docketing of cases and hearing
of cases. I think we are just around the corner for real dramatic
improvements.
The city council has taken a receptive ear toward this wasteful figure
of 40 people and it could well be policemen will be paid for court ap-
pearances, which I am sure will dramatically increase the effectiveness
of the courts when money is outlayed.
Mr. Keating. Compensatory time is really a disrupting influence,
isn't it.
Mr. GooDiN. Yes, sir. The 40 policemen are a composite increment
of compensatory time. That is what it amounts to.
Mr. Keating. Haven't two of the principal computer systems been
approved by the county voters, plus the radio system ? All of this will
lead to computerization of the entire court docket ?
Mr. GooDiN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Keating. For one thing, and it just is a mechanization of our
whole process, or our whole legal process.
Mr. GooDiN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman, I have consumed enough time.
Chairman Pepper. Chief, I want to ask you a few questions. First,
about the LEAA funds. How much do you get and what do you use
those funds for ?
Mr. GooDiN. Mr. Chairman, since the existence of LEAA, prior to
that, OLEA, we have invested about a million dollars for the city of
Cincinnati, That is a somewhat misleading figure because much of the
moneys that have been spent in Cincinnati have been spent on a
countywide basis, which is for regional crime laboratories, for scien-
tific training at Xavier University, which is countywide in nature;
things like this.
Specifically, Cincinnati has used its LEAA funds for programs and
sort of software kinds of things, and research.
The program management bureau is partially funded for operations
analysis. We have a regional law enforcement narcotics unit com-
posed of officers from each of the departments all over the county. We
have an organized crime unit which is funded by LEAA,
263
We have a police cadet program which is partially funded for young-
sters through the ages of 17 to 21, who work as civilians in our depart-
ment, and co-op at the University of Cincinnati. Upon graduation
they receive an associate degree, have been trained during their quarter
breaks and are promoted and go out in the street as policemen without
any 20-week delay in training.
We have a criminal prevention program which involves a person
at each district, which has primary responsibility for developing
crime prevention programs.
Chairman Pepper. Do you think the use of LEAA funds is more
effective in curbing crime than to put that money in employing more
men to be in uniform on the streets ?
Mr. GooDiN. I think it is ; yes, sir. I think the only criticism I would
have of the administration of funds would be their guidelines are
unduly restrictive. Quite frankly, it restricts a city like Cincinnati in
that our own moneys, city budget dollars, were spent for training and
programs. Being innovative and being funded by LEAA was pioneered
in the Cincinnati Police Division by Chief Schrotel and others.
LEAA funds police cadet programs all over the county. Cincinnati
has had it since 1955. We would like to expand on it but are not able
to do so because it is an expansion program. We feel each city, each
community, should have the dollars to spend as the city administration
sees best to spend them, based on the needs identified in their com-
munity.
Chairman Pepper. I agree with you on that. The difficult decision
was to you, how best to use it and you used the money wisely.
Suppose the Federal Government were to inaugurate a program to
provide more police on the streets of the cities of this country ; suppose
the Federal Government were to put up 25 percent of a certain sum
for that purpose and your States were to put up 25 percent, and the
cities would put up 50 percent. Would that be a helpful program, or
should there be some other formula for the division of the money, in
case such aid would be forthcoming ?
Mr. GooDiN. I would have to answer that simply by saying I think
it would be beneficial. I think the testimony that I have heard in the
major cities is that most police departments are undermanned, under-
staffed. I think that is disputable because they may be ineffectively
deployed or allocated among the departments. But that certainly
would be a way for the Federal Government to help. Subsidy for police
salaries, for j^olice education, needs to be expanded.
Chairman Pepper. You think that would be a proper function for
the Federal Government to get into ?
Mr. GooDiN. Yes, sir.
Chairman Peppper. Helpful in curbing crime ?
Mr. GooDiN. Yes, sir.
Chairman Pepper. And if they want to do these other things, all
right.
Mr. GooDiN. Yes, sir.
Chairman Pepper. But, after all, the greatest single factor in
curbing crime is the availability of trained police to deal with the
problem ; would you agree with that ?
Mr. GooDiN. I would agree with that, Mr. Chairman. If we would
isolate it to one single factor ; yes, sir.
95-158 0—73 — pt. 1 18
264
Chairman Pepper. What about the cooperation between your police
department and the prosecuting attorney's office?
Mr. GooDiN. We have excellent cooperation within the Cincinnati
Police Division and the local prosecutor and the county prosecutor.
I might say, it might be a model to be looked at by other agencies.
Chairman Pepper. And there is good will between the two depart-
ments ?
Mr. GooDiN. Absolutely.
Chairman Pepper. What about between the police department and
the courts ?
Mr. GooDiN. We have excellent cooperation between the police
departments and the courts. As I indicated earlier, the courts have
gone out of the way to establish their committees to work with us on
problems of police time. They have identified weaknesses in the testi-
mony of officers, for which we have developed training programs, and
given freely of their time and trained the police officers.
Chairman Pepper. Wliat about the dispatch of cases in the court?
Mr. GooDiN. We think the overloading of the criminal court dockets
on both levels, common pleas level and municipal level, is atrocious.
Chairman Pepper. How long does it take, ordinarily, between the
time the charge is made against the defendant in Cincinnati and the
actual trial ?
Mr. GooDiN. Tt certainly depends on the nature of the crime and
skillfulness of the defense attorney. I would say some cases run as
long as a year. Some of them have not been finally adjudicated that
are over a year old.
Chairman Pepper. That is a great frustration to the police depart-
ment.
Mr. GooDiN. Absolutely. It is probably one of the greatest frustra-
tions police suffer.
Mr. Panno. I have only been on the force a short period of time, 5,
going on 6 years, but I have had cases go from the time of arrest
until a disiX)sition in common pleas court in 4 months, and other cases
go as long as 13 to 15 months. It is disenchanting to spend a lot of
time and a lot of technology to catch someone at a crime of stealth
and have that man beat you back out on the sidewalk from the court
room.
Chairman Pepper. I know that is very frustrating to the police.
Heretofore, we have had a lot of witnesses and it has come to the
personal knowledge of many of us that there is little cooperation in
respect to this matter between the courts and the police authority.
Sometimes the courts think that is no business of the police authori-
ties, it is their business.
And in a great many instances the courts have not been subject
to any kind of supervision. A judge sat when he wanted to, he left
in the midafternoon if he wanted to, he tried as many cases as he
thought he should.
In Miami, where I live, we just set up a new system in the courts,
so we only have in each county, two courts: county courts, which
handle lesser offenses; and circuit courts of general jurisdiction. But
either one can sit in the other court. Now, for the first time, a circuit
judge, who is the supervisory judge, you might call him, a managing
administrative judge of all of the judges in the circuit system, and
another supervisory judge, managing judge for all of the judges in
265
fche circuit system, and another supervisory judge, managing judge
for all the judges in the county system, can review the dockets. He
can examine the length of time the judges put in; he can prod those
judges to greater performance. If the system is not working he can
check on it, and if necessary go to the Governor or to the legislature.
So we are getting a much more efficient judicial administrative pro-
gram than we were getting when each judge was a separate entity unto
himself.
Do you have anything like that in your area ?
Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment and intercede ?
We have a new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of
Ohio, C. William O'Neill, who was formerly Governor of the State.
Justice O'Neill has, since his appointment as chief justice, been at-
tempting to implement a speedier judicial disposition of civil and
criminal cases in the State of Ohio.
I think he has been very successful in accelerating the date of
trial, but until you get to a point where a case is tried within 60 days,
then we have not completed the job. But he has been a great force
for this cause in our State and has been extremely effective. But when
3^ou go from the position we were in before to the position you want
to be, there is much left to be done.
Chairman Pepper. In Florida, the State supreme court has prac-
tically required a man to be tried within 60 days and if he is not, unless
it is some justifiable reason for his not being tried, the case is to be
dismissed. At the beginning of that program some cases were dis-
missed. Now, the prosecuting attorneys diligently take care to see that
the cases are brought to trial within 60 days.
What about the correctional system in your area ? We generally say
the police, prosecuting attorneys, the courts, and the correctional sys-
tems, are the various essential elements of the system for the admin-
istration of justice. In many areas, the correctional system is the first
problem, also. How well have you come to deal with that problem in
your area ?
Mr. GooDiN. We have an opportimity for input into correctional
matters, operations, design of systems, things of this nature, but not
nearly as much as we do with the courts.
To follow up on your comment about the courts, we have had an
invitation by the chief justice extending an oppoi'tunity for our officers
of Cincinnati to serve on committees, on the revision of the Ohio
Criminal Code, the rules of criminal procedure, which has to be sort
of unique in terms of criminal justice cooperation. We sort of walk
through a lot of those procedures from what it would actually mean
to the police and citizen on the street, which will make the rules
much more effective for the people.
In terms of correction, probation, and parole, and things of this
nature, it is probably just like every place else : It is a miserable fail-
ure. Their batting average is worse than that of the police. If we
arrest less than 29 percent of the violators and they correct less than
that, then it is a complete flop.
Chairman Pepper. Have you, as most States generally have, one
big State penal institution in Ohio ?
Mr. GooDiN. We have an Ohio Penitentiary but there are other
institutions spread through the State.
266
Chairman Pepper. Where is that located ?
Mr. GooDiN. Columbus, Ohio.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much, Chief, and all of the
gentlemen associated with you, for coming here today and helping us.
You are recognized as one of the most innovative chiefs in the country.
You were first brought to my attention by Mr. Tamm, one of the out-
standing chiefs of police in the country. You obviously have a very
able group of associates here who are helping you to do a good job.
I just want to ask you this last question. Despite the progress you
have achieved in the past, you still have a lot of violent and serious
crime. Wliat can you offer to the people of Cincinnati ; what can you
do to cut down on the number of crimes you still have ; and what can
be done, in your opinion, to reduce the number of crimes you still have
in your city ?
Mr. GooDiN. We feel all of the programs we w^ork on and that we
develop and design have a goal of crime containment, reduce citizen
victimization. We feel that a coordinated, well-planned effort with the
proper analysis is the best kind of response to a problem. We, many
times in law enforcement, are required to respond to the fear of crime,
not of the incidence of the crime, itself.
I will give you an example. In Cincinnati, we have sort of in the cen-
ter of the city downtown area a town square which is visited by most
people who come to Cincinnati and it is one of the finer points of the
city. We have several strong-arm robberies and assaults over a week,
four or five, involving youngsters and some adults. Most were closed
by arrests. But an uninformed media portrayed that as practically a
crime wave. There was no more of a crime problem there than any-
where else. That is not a crime problem when you have kids assaulting
other kids. They were doing that when I was a child. It was not a crime
problem.
But to maintain the confidence of the conmiunity, we assigned uni-
formed officers there, highly visible officers on foot, with the K-9 unit
walking across the fountain occasionally, to calm the public. After 10
or 15 days of that kind of deployment, which was a total waste of man-
power, people sort of assumed the downtown area really is safe — "look
at all of those policemen."
So many times we do respond to the fear of crime rather than the
actual crime problem. A systematic approach to deal Avith that includes
close liaison with the media and the criminal justice system, which is
the best we can offer to the citizens of Cincinnati.
Chairman Pepper. Chief, the Government tells the people there has
been a reduction in crime and it is in the magazines and their media :
There has been a reduction in serious crime for the first time in 17 years,
a slight reduction, a few percent. But the media say, in effect, there
is an increase in violent crime; small increase, but there is still an in-
crease. And the people want to know : Do we have to live all of the rest
of our lives, and our children and grandchildren live their lives, with
the tragic amount of crime we have in the country today?
These muggings, rapes, and robberies. Do we have to accept any-
thing like the rate of crime we now have, today, as the inevitable ex-
perience of the people of the country ? What can we hope for as a major
breakthrough so there will be a real large meaningful diminution in
the amount of crime in this country ?
267
Mr. GooDiN. I think the systems approach to the problem we have
today, we have heard discussed thoroughly through the criminal jus-
tice system, a sti-onger stand on a certain kind of violent crime, place
a priority by tlie judicial system on crimes of violence, put it at the top
of the docket. Tluit kind of practical approach to it will let the criminal
know, tliose inclined to crime, that the citizens of this country and of
Cincinnati, or whatever community, will not tolerate abuses of its
people or violations of its laws.
And when the citizen knows, as he did before the civil disturbance
era of this country, that if he commits a crime he is likely to be caught
and dealt with quickly and justly, then when we can achieve that and
instill that in the mind of the citizenry, we can do something about
crime. Until that, people inclined toward crime believe it to be the case,
as it actually is, swift justice is a myth, we are not going to do much
about it.
Chairman Pepper. Would you put great emphasis also on juvenile
crime ?
Mr. GooDiN. Absolutely. A very integral part of our process.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you.
Mr. Keating. May I comment ? I don't want to embarrass the chief,
but I would like to see the chief as the Director of the FBI.
Chairman Pepper. He would be a good one. He has appeared to me
as one of the top outstanding chiefs of police in the country. We in
Miami have a good candidate in Rocky Pomerance of Miami Beach.
Thank you very much, Chief.
[Chief Goodin's prepared statement and a pamphlet on Com-Sec,
previously mentioned, follows :]
Prepared Statement of Col. Carl V. Goodin, Chief of Police, Cincinnati, Ohio
TKAM policing : reorganization to me:et the challenges of the future
The basic question to be addressed in this brief discussion is : How can a police
agency organize itself to deal more effectively with its primary responsibilities in
the coming years? A very common reply given in the United States today is "Team
Policing." Among the many programs calling Team Policing, the common denomi-
nator seems to be the assignment of a group of oflScers to patrol a given area. We
need to go much l)eyond this simplistic statement in order to determine what
there is in team policing which generates some ray of hope for the future of
policing. Therefore, the focus of this paper will be to analyze the mechanism
which are present in some team policing models which would enable a police
agency to more effectively deal with criminal victimization.
The objectives of police agencies are often described as being :
(1) Prevention of crime :
(2) Protection of life and property ;
(3) Suppression of criminal activity ;
(4) Apprehension and prosecution of offenders ;
(5) Regulation of non-criminal conduct ; and
(6) Preservation of the public peace.
We have found that we are not unifonnly effective in attaining these objec-
tives ; crime is still increasing despite our best efforts. The President's Commis-
sion on Crime pointed this out and also indicated that we cannot attain these
objectives so long as police agencies are expected to struggle with these problems
in an atmosphere lacking the assistance of the greater community.
The Commission also suggested a solution — team policing. Team policing does
not aim toward new objectives and goals (it is not just a public relations pro-
gram)— in fact, the goals and objectives of the police have stood the test of time.
Team policing is designed to recognize that the attainment of these goals cannot
be accomplished by the police agency alone. Instead of operating in a vacuum, the
268
community, social and other governmental agencies, and society itself, all play a
role in carrying out the police function.
The aspects of team policing which are crucial for reducing criminal victimiza-
tion seem to be :
(1) Consistent assignment,
(2) Unification of control, responsibility,
(3) Team decision-making power,
(4) Development of the police officer as a generalist, and
(5) Communications.
The consistent assignment of an officer to the same area allows the officer to
become familiar with that area and its people to a much greater extent than is
possible under a system of rotating assignments. Consistent assignment tends to
breed a proprietary interest in the community on the part of the police officer
once the officer recognizes that present actions may cause problems for him in the
future.
By unifying the control, responsibility and supervision in an area, the actions
taken by police officers can become more consistent. By developing a consistent,
high level of service, a major roadblock to communication is removed. We all
often find a high level of fear attached to situations with which we are unfamil-
iar. Certainly citizens must experience great anxiety in their contacts with police
officers considering the current practices of many police agencies. Many different
units, each having its own specialized function and its own line of command may
operate in the same small area in the same day.
Coupling a simplified control structure with team decision-making power en-
ables the police to develop plans on the basis of local level information which
should be more in keeping with community needs. This approach allows the officer
on the street more latitude in dealing with the problems he faces. The more con-
sistent performance and greater commitment developed through such a system
should create an environment in which police officers and community residents
can, develop an effective alliance against crime.
Another element of this plan is the development of a generalist officer. A gen-
eralist should be capable of delivering the complete spectrum of police services,
thus providing more effective follow-through concerning the delivery of those
services. An officer who has had adequate training and experience should be able
to carry out investigations of all types as well as provide the routine services
expected of patrol officers.
All of the above factors should also tend to improve communications both
within the agency as well as between its representatives and the community. The
current structure of police agencies is a great deterrent to the effective com-
munication of information which is of importance to the agency. By simplifying
the chain of command and responsibility, the major obstacle to internal commu-
nication is removed. Furthermore, the police agency itself must take the first step
in improving its relations with the community. The development of stable lines of
communications is of great importance in encouraging mutual trust, understand-
ing and aid among the police and the community.
Providing an officer the opportunity to understand the community, allowing a
group of officers to define their own problems, goals and policies, developing a
generalist notion of policing and improving communications should improve the
outlook of policing in the future. Perhaps none of this discussion is new to any of
us, but we must begin to look for new methods of providing police services. The
ever-increasing problems that face us serve as prima facie evidence that we have
not yet obtained the ultimate goals of policing. The need to find new solutions is
to become even more urgent as our society clamors ever more vociferously for
better police service. Even if crime does not overwhelm us in the coming years,
public sentiment will, unless viable methods of policing are developed. The reor-
ganization which has been outlined in these pages is one method which hopes to
achieve the vital alliance among the police and the community needed to promul-
gate the more effective delivery of police services.
269
270
COM-SEC
EVERYBODY WANTS A SAFER
COMMUNITY... COM SEC IS
THE NEW WAY TO GET IT ...
COM SEC (short for community sector) is a new
style of policing that bases a highly responsive,
mini-police department in your own community.
This community police department is manned by
0 team of permanently-assigned officers especi-
ally trained to provide all your police services.
WHERE WILL COM SEC OPERATE?
In the beginning, COM SEC will operate in
Cincinnati Police District One, which includes
the downtown business section, Over-the-Rhine,
West End, Mt. Adams, and the downtown River-
front. In this area of less than four square miles
will be six mini-police departments, one each
of the six communities within the District.
HOW IS COM SEC DIFFERENT?
Until now, you may not have known your police-
man (and perhaps you did not care). He did not
know you because he worked in many different
communities . Under COM SEC, the policeman
will be permanently based in your community. He
will have time to know you and understand your
problems, just as you will get to know him and
his problems.
WHAT IS IN IT FOR YOU?
COM SEC is not a "miracle cure" for all your
community problems. By itself, it won't produce
jobs, better education or lower prices, which
certainly are prime concerns. But COM SEC
should result in far less crime and a safer
neighborhood for you to live in. And that's a
good start toward solving community problems.
Studies show that, over the years, safe communi-
ties ultimately mean lower prices at the stores,
they attract stable businesses, develop more
jobs and better education opportunities for
residents.
271
dE^^
^^"^^fflf
272
u
u
O
u
lU
O
>-
CO
O
z
lU
o
CO
O
(/)
"o
u
D
o
0)
M
c
o
a.
c
O
0) o
o
0)
E
c
(U
E
0)
u
c
a>
Q.
CL
o
0) (1)
o
u
l/l
0)
E
c
>
Q.
Q.
LU J^
-5 o
UJ
c
U
<D
E
_J
o
o
u
CL
~o
O o
E _i:
o
O LLI
_C to
0) o
3
o
c
E
E
o
C 0)
O "D
0)
(1) o
— _Q
(U
_ _D _
O
C
o
u
c
0)
E
(U <u
U _Q
c
0)
c
o
E
(U
Q.
O)
c
CO JJ
. D
*- u
D
O —
_D —
° i
0)
u -^
Ci. -D -D
U g O
O <=
o
t/5
_l
<
CO
D
■♦-
I/) 0)
LLI ~0
0)
LU
■♦—
c
3
E
E
o
UL. CL i_
— O D
5^ 0 O
C
o
Q.
Q.
O
t/)
b
-D
C
o
0)
E
c
D
U
O
«>
o
o
D
0)
LU (1)
OO ^ -3
2 "o —
o g -5
(J
D) -
2 o -
c
o
P o
CD -^
o>
0)
>
o
a>
a.
o
o
u
-a
c
D
C O 3
E
o
u
a)
c
o
"O
0)
0)
E
c
D
U
O
Zl
-4-
Z)
E
di
c
I/)
0, 3
-^ ? O
O >-'^
<D O C
Q_ -O D
-X3 D.
C O
- 0)
O
LL O
— "D
i/l
<U
U
O
c
COD
o c
Q) U —
tx
u
"5
c
o
</)
0)
E
D E
o o
0--
U
UJ
CO
O
U
0£
3
UJ
X
CO
O i)
O t>o
LU O
u u
o
O
Q_
D
C
C
u
c
U
>
-;; ~o
<D u
-T3 —
c o
3 Q.
D-
_o
o J
0)
<L)
D
0)
C
u in
in ."^
— <D
i o
c u
D -^
u .E
_C 0)
c
Q. >-
c
3
E
E
o
u
o
0) o
o
ir "o
Q- -^
O O
u
l/l
-5
_ <U
-D
U
c
a>
D)
o
U
LU
CO
:S
o
^~ Si
O) D
5 >
<D >-
_Q CL
0) ^-
E ^
•r o
o —
0) "D
~a a>
*- 0)
X en
6)
>- E
E D
Q.
"D
— " 0)
3 U
O
l/l
in
0)
u
u
3
m
o
Q.
273
HOW CAN YOU GET INVOLVED?
• Get to know your COM SEC policeman
• Offer him your suggestions to improve police
service
• Participate in crime prevention activities
• Take an active part in monthly COM SEC
meetings
• Get your friends to attend
• Invite your policemen to attend other commun-
ity organization meetings
• Report crimes or community problems about
which you may have information.
GOOD POLICE SERVICE NEEDS THE WHOLE
TEAM: YOUR POLICE OFFICER AND YOU!
YOU ARE INVITED TO THE COM SEC MEET-
INGS IN YOUR COMMUNITY. CALL 352-3505
FOR TIME AND PLACE OF THE NEXT
MEETING.
innii -m
274
Chairman Pepper. We will adjourn until 10 a.m., tomorrow, when
we will meet in room 1302, Longworth House Office Building.
[Whereupon, at ,5 :30 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene
at 10 a.m., on Wednesday, April 11, 1973, in room 1302, Longworth
House Office Building.]
STREET CRIME IN AMERICA
(The Police Response)
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 1973
House of Representatives,
Select Commtttee on Crlme,
Washington^ B.C.
Tlie committee met, pursuant to notice at 10 :10 a.m., in room 1302,
Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Claude Pepper
(chairman) presiding.
Present: Representatives Pepper, Murphy, Rangel, Winn, Sand-
man, and Keating. Representative Ralph H. Metcalfe, of Illinois, was
an invited guest and sat with the committee.
Also present: Chris Nolde, chief comisel; Richard Lynch, deputy
chief counsel ; and Leroy Bedell, hearings officer.
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
During the morning we will be hearing testimony about the Chicago
Police Department's community service aid program. One of our dis-
tinguished members is from the great city of Chicago.
We also have the honor of having with us this morning another dis-
tinguished Representative from the Chicago area, Hon. Ralph Met-
calfe. Mr. Metcalfe has made a very distinguished record here in the
House of Representatives. We are delighted to have him join us this
momuig.
Mr. Murphy, will you be kind enough to introduce our first witness
this morning.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the com-
mittee, I am pleased to introduce this morning the distinguished
deputy superintendent of the Chicago Police Department, Mr. Samuel
W. Nolan, Deputy Superintendent Nolan is in command of the depart-
ment's bureau of community services and in that capacity has been in
charge of the community services aide program.
Superintendent Nolan is a veteran of 28 years of service in the
Chicago Police Department. As most of you know, the Chicago Police
Department is one of the Nation's largest law enforcement agencies.
It has a present strength of more than 13,000 men and women.
Superintendent Nolan has brought with him this morning four
representatives of the department who have worked in the community
service aide program and I will ask the superintendent to introduce
them for the committee at this time.
(275)
276
PANEL OF CHICAGO (ILL.) POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS:
CHAMBERLAIN, JOHN D., SERGEANT;
CROSBY, WAYNE, COMMUNITY SERVICE AIDE;
JUNGHEIM, ANNETTE K., COMMUNITY SERVICE AIDE;
NOLAN, SAMUEL W., DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT ; AND
ROTTMAN, HERBERT R., LIEUTENANT
STATEMENT OF SAMUEL W. NOLAN
Mr. Nolan. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say thank you very much for inviting
the city of Chicago's police department representatives to appear be-
fore your committee today.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Nolan, we are very much honored to have
you here today. You know these hearings are for the purpose of
presenting to the Congress and the country the most innovative,
imaginative programs that are being carried on in the various parts
of the country in the fields of the administration of the criminal justice
system of this Nation.
The police program is the first one ; then we will delve into proba-
tion; prosecuting attorneys; courts, trial and appellate; and juvenile
delinquency.
Your great city has been chosen as one of the cities which has a very
outstanding and innovative program. We are very much pleased to
have you and your associates here today to tell us about it.
Mr. Nolan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On my right is Lt. Herbert E. Rottman, commanding officer of
the community service aide program since its inception on Chicago's
West Side. To his right is Mrs. Annette K. Jungheim, a community
service aide, who works in what we refer to as the "uptown area,"
the North Side of Chicago and she, too, has been a community service
aide since the inception of the program.
On my left I have Sgt. John D. Chamberlin. Sergeant Chamberlin
has been acting commander of the Near South Community Service
Center, also since its inception. And on his left is another community
service aide, Mr. Wayne Crosby, a young man who has been an assist-
ant squad leader in our program for the last 3 years.
The Chicago Police Department Community Service Aides Project
is administered by the superintendent of police through the deputy
superintendent of the bureau of community services. The community
service centers and their assigned personnel are under the direct
supervision of a project director. This program was developed and
brought into being after 2 years of target area study and prepara-
tion, in conjunction with Model Cities representatives and area neigh-
borhood councils and their members.
In January 1970 the hiring of 422 community service aides began
and simultaneously six community service centers in predesignated
target areas were opened to fulfill a specific police purpose.
To accomplish this purpose two immediate goals were set and con-
sidered of paramount importance: (1) To assist in decreasing the
incidence of crime and allowing the police patrol force to spend more
time in the area of crime prevention and enforcement activities; and
277
(2) to assist in improving the quality of urban life in the designated
target areas.
The Model Cities target areas consist of 300,000 residents in ap-
proximately 30 square miles. It is at high-density residency and gen-
erally considered high crime rate areas. The complaints, fears, and
general misunderstanding of the police functions, their responsibili-
ties and duties, all provided an insight to develop programs ; and the
lack of sufficient career opportunities and employment of target resi-
dents also was of prime importance in planning for this project.
The essence of the community service aide involvement is citizen
participation, and the injection of more citizens directly into the law
enforcement system. The unreported and unabated problems, espe-
cially those of a criminal nature, that have gone unresolved and are
a constant source of anxiety and frustration, are all a contributing fac-
tor that leads to crime and antisocial behavior.
At the start of the program, the superintendent of police issued
department directives to all members of the force and a community
service aide official procedure manual was prepared and officially
issued to department heads as well as the aides. All units of depart-
ments were directed to render assistance to this program including,
but not limited to, the training division, the department psychologist
in the personnel division, the medical section, and all other specialized
units within the department whenever their services were needed.
Units such as auto theft, burglary units, narcotics, and youth officers
were constantly utilized to conduct seminars.
Community service aides, after initial selection — age group of 17
years to 35 years, both males and females, some even with past police
records — began 455 hours of training, starting with 200 hours of
preservice training, and 255 hours of inservice training.
The single dominant criterion for employment was residency in
target areas of employment. There are no exceptions to this require-
ment. The preservice training helped determine quality, as the civil-
ians participated in this new learning device, to learn Model Cities
concepts and goals, administrative duties and discover their own
abilities.
This training was divided into three phases to develop the practical
side of need for vital service responsibilities of coping with crisis
areas — police community interactions — sociological dilemmas, and
how best they be utilized in all duties permitted by law.
Some of the courses taught were criminal law, department standards,
field procedures, general and specific duties, investigation and report
writing. Advanced inservice training dealt with specifics of the above
and consisted of two phases.
The backbone of the program is the patrolman. As supervisor, he is
responsible for the output of the aides and assists in developing the
leadership within the ranks of the aides. The basic work unit is team
patrol, and the basic patrol philosophy is taught in training sessions.
It was recognized that therein lies, for some, a difficult transition
of lifestyle, as not usually seeing the policeman as a partner. A learn-
ing experience begins for both the community service aide and the
police officer. But the mere presence of the uniformed aides and the
officer has in many instances been a deterrent factor in high-crime
areas.
278
One project function is the education and counseling program which
is offered in three tracks, and preliminary testing and counseling
places all aides in one of these tracks.
It is an important aspect in upgrading formal education of com-
munity service aides at their own level. Chicago City College, Public
Service Institute, under contractural agreement, has provided a basic
education program, G.E.D. preparation program, and college-level
programs.
All of these opportunities, of which 97 percent of community service
aides participated in at least one of the three levels, stated the goal of
this effort was to help aides decide on realistic vocational goals.
Each center, as an integral part of the program, has a full-time as-
signed counselor. Not only for secondary school attendees, but for
regular assistance in the Ijasic education programs, and to conduct
those classes needed so that aides complete at least a high school level ;
9 hours per week are allowed for educational courses, with pay.
There is no guarantee of professional law enforcement officer em-
ployment due to rigid civil service requirements. However, the train-
ing and experience does prepare community service aides for advance-
ment and entrance into the public safety agencies and other human
services agencies and also the private sector of the economy.
Aides have gone on to many diversified jobs: Police officer, stew-
ardess, park employees, post office and other governmental jobs.
By their knowledge and firsthand experiences in community prob-
lems, new directions and added duties developed mainly designed to
the steering of the young from a criminal involvement to a socially
gainful environment, in the aides immediate recognition of the basic
factors inherent to unlawful acts, which is the desire to perform a
specific act and the afforded opportunity to go undetected.
Community service aides have performed a myriad of service func-
tions, normally handled by sworn personnel, designed to increase
safety of persons and property. In accomplisliing some of their tasks,
community service aides relieve police personnel of adult missing
persons investigations, abandoned vehicles and recovery of stolen
vehicles processing, rabies control, dog licensing program, and the
bicycles registration program.
Neighborhood burglaries are an important area of patrol and the
new operation identification program is aimed at curtailing criminal
activity in looting homes and businesses. The formation of community
workshops at the neighborhood level block clubs, even in high rises,
has been instrumental in better understanding of a need of citizen
participation in crime prevention.
Aides have assisted in the apprehension of offenders of criminal
acts and their high visibility of team patrol in those pockets of crime-
laden areas where schoolchildren extortion and physical attacks occur,
and also those areas reporting purse snatching and auto thefts, auto
parts, and those experiencing high incidence of arson difficulties.
They are also involved in reporting building violations, assisting in
crowd control, tutoring programs, "cultural involvement programs,
senior citizens' activities, and many other needed services to their
communities.
The following is a statistical comparison of index crimes for a like
6-month subsequent period as reported in the police community service
centers comprising six designated target areas.
279
It is recognized from September of 1971 through Febniary of 1972
that there has been a decrease in the amount of homicides to 35 from
63. There has been in the area of rape a decrease, 129 from 267. Seri-
ous assaults, unfoitunately, have risen over 200. Robbery has been re-
duced to 1,859 from 2,640. Burglary has been reduced about one-third.
Theft of autos has increased about one-third; and grand theft has
increased, unfortunately, to 838 from 605.
I think at this time, by permission of the chairman, we would talk
just a moment about our funding.
Chairman Pepper. We would be very glad to hear it.
Mr. Murphy. Mr. Nolan, I would like to question you regarding
your funding. Obviously your community service aides program has
received Federal funds and we would like to know how much funding.
AVliat effect will the proposed budget cuts liave on your funding'^
Mr. Nolan. Very good, sir. At the inception of the program this
model cities aid project was funded entirely by our model cities ad-
ministration in our city through Housing and Urban Development.
Shortly thereafter, in July of 1970 the Illinois Law Enforcement
Commission supplied us at the fiscal year with one-third, which was
$1.3 million. Total funding of that program at that time was $3.2
million. This went on for the first year and the second year.
The contingency was through the Illinois Law Enforcement Com-
mission that the department would apply for discretionary funds
through the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. This was
done, but denied in November of 1970 on the basis that the depart-
ment's program did not fit into any category that they had under
which they could fund our program.
Mr. Murphy. I would like to pursue that, if I may. We are talking
about LEAA funds?
Mr. Nolan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Murphy. And the Chicago Police Department submitted a re-
quest for those funds ?
Mr. Nolan. Yes, we did.
Mr. Murphy. And it was denied on what basis ?
Mr. Nolan. On the basis that under the categories in which we ap-
plied there was not sufficient funds direct from LEAA to supply us
the amount of money we request namely; $1.3 million.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Murphy, if I may, t would like to know whether
that denial was from the Illinois Law Enforcement Commission or
the LEAA in Washington.
Mr. Nolan. On request of the Illinois Law Enforcement Commis-
sion we were told to apply direct to LEAA in Washington.
Mr. Lynch. For discretionary grants ?
Mr. Nolan. That is right.
Mr. Murphy. That, too, was denied ?
Mr. Nolan. That was denied.
Mr. Murphy. On what grounds? That the particular program you
had in mind was not contemplated by LEAA ?
Mr. Nolan. The only reply we received was that in the category in
which we applied — ^this was their words — there was not sufficient fund-
ing for a program such as ours.
Mr. Murphy. That was in community service programs?
Mr. Nolan. The community service aide project.
95-158 O— 73— pt. 1 19
280
Mr. Murphy. How were they funded prior to that ?
Mr. Nolan. They funded it through the Illinois Law Enforcement
Commission prior to that. That is where one-third funding had been
received.
Mr. Lynch. The Illinois Law Enforcement Commission is the State
planning agency for the State of Illinois under LEAA ?
Mr. Nolan. That is right, sir.
Mr. Murphy. What would you have done with those funds had
they been received? Would they have been used for walkie-talkies,
radios, and other equipment ?
Mr. Nolan. They could have been used for communication, but
mainly they could have taken up that one-third needed funds and
carried the program at its present level.
Mr. Murphy. You just recited a number of reductions in auto thefts,
burglaries, and other categories of crime as a result of this program ;
is that correct ?
Mr. Nolan. Yes, we have.
Mr. Murphy. And yet the Federal Government denied these funds,
stating that the category wasn't proper ?
Mr. Nolan. Yes ; they have been denied. But the program did not
suffer (because the city of Chicago, through our own Model Cities
Administration, found funds to carry it on until just March 31 of this
year.
Mr. Murphy. Will you be able to continue to carry that on ?
Mr. Nolan. No, we will not ; because as of March 31 this year it was
necessary for the superintendent of ipolice to direct me to close six of
our centers and to lay off ibetter than two-thirds of our people, from
422. We are down to 81. They closed all of our centers and these 81
people are scattered in the six police district stations in the target
areas.
Mr. Murphy. Mr. Superintendent, do you know^ of any other major
cities that have a program like this community service aides program ?
Mr. Nolan. No ; there are none in the country.
Mr. Lynch. If I may, Mr. Murphy, the Chicago Police Department
community service aides program is the country's largest. I think
there are other aide programs, but no city has invested as much man-
power or money as has Chicago, concentrating in specific target areas.
I wonder, Mr. Superintendent, if you could tell the committee how
many centers you had and would you also describe what you mean by
the term "center?"
Mr. Nolan. The police community service center is located in the
heart of the target area. It is usually la store-front building. It com-
prises a number of aides that are 8 percent of the population of that
particular area.
For instance, our Grand Boulevard area, one of the areas of our
city in which Congressman Metcalfe is the Representative, is one of
the largest. It has 102 aides assigned there. But Grand Boulevard,
just immediately east of there, is a smaller area because of some of the
abandoned and vacant buildings, and we have 41 aides assigned at
that particular center.
We have two at the West Side. One has a complement of 78 aides,
and one has a complement of 39 aides, and the one we have in the
Woodlawn area has a comiplement of 78 aides. And we have one uip on
281
the far North Side, uptown, which has a complement of approximately
78 aides, also.
Mr. Lynch. You had a total of six centers ; is that right ?
Mr. Nolan. A total of six.
Mr. Lynch. And they have all been closed ?
Mr. Nolan. They were closed.
Mr. Lynch. And they could be characterized as store fronts, neigh-
borhood walk-in centers ?
Mr. Nolan. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. Did you, in fact, have people in the neighborhood other
than aides or police })ersonnel employed in the program who used to
come into those centers and, if so, what did they come there for? What
service was rendered to them there ?
Mr. Nolan. The centers were commanded and rim by police per-
sonnel, lieutenant or police conunander, and sergeants charged with
supervision, and patrolmen as squad leaders. But we also used the
centers to indoctrinate the community residents that this was a satel-
lite police station where they could come for services which could be
explained very well by some of our aides here, of the type that was
given; come in for services, come in to register complaints, come in to
learn how to get better service than what they usually have in the
community in which they live.
The centers were also used to conduct programs, to bring young
people into a gathering place, for senior citizens, to conduct tutoring
classes, but mainly to let the citizens know that police community
workshops, block club meetings, any type of community services that
they desired within the realm of police personnel, could be conducted
in those centers at any time of the day or evening.
Mr. Lynch. You told Mr. Murphy that a discretionary grant appli-
cation directed to LEAA here in Washington was denied on the basis
that your program did not fit into LEAA's categorical grant format?
You also indicated that you had been denied additional funding by
the Illinois Law Enforcement Commission.
What is the situation with Model Cities funding now ? Have they
been reduced in the city of Chicago ?
Mr. Nolan. They have been reduced. I mig^ht add one clarifying
point, counsel, with respect to the Illinois Law Enforcement Commis-
sion. One of the contingencies of the second-year funding was that
the third-year funding would be reduced accordingly. The second-year
fimding had an attached rider letter which required us to apply
directly to the Washington LEAA program, and, in turn, we were
turned down.
Mr. Lynch. How much money had the ILEC given you?
Mr. Nolan. They had funded us for 2 years. We are now waiting
for third-year funding, Avhich is not forthcoming as yet.
Mr. Lynch. This funding amounts to how much?
Mr. Nolan. $1.3 million, or a reduced amount.
Mr. Lynch. During the second year, was that money reduced ?
Mr. Nolan. No, the same amount.
Mr. Lynch. And what was the contingency for additional fimding?
Mr. Nolan. The application into the LEAA and their reduced
amount for the third year.
282
Mr. Lynch. Have you, in fact, reapplied to ILEC for additional
money ?
Mr. Nolan. We have applied.
Mr. Lynch. When did you do that, sir ?
Mr, Nolan. The 30th of January the mayor forwarded a letter to
the chairman of the Illinois Law Enforcement Commission, stating
the Chicago Police Department Police Community Service Aide Proj-
ect was requesting at that time an honor of the commitment of the
Illinois Law Enforcement Commission for third-year funding.
Mr. Lynch. And the chairman is Mr. Bilek?
Mr. Nolan. No. It is presently Mr. Donald Page Moore.
Mr. Lynch. Did Mr. Moore respond to the mayor's letter?
Mr. Nolan. He responded that the matter would be taken up at the
standing committee meeting in February, which it was, which the
superintendent was a member of the standing committee. I, myself,
was present, and it was stated in their particular minutes at this par-
ticular time, with the superintendent of police abstaining, that they
would honor their commitment ; the full amount would not be given
but a substantial amount would be as soon as funds were located. We
are still waiting.
Mr. Lynch. As soon as funds were located ?
Mr. Nolan. We are still waiting for those funds.
Mr. Lynch. Wiat does that mean ?
Mr. Nolan. Frankly, I don't know.
Mr. Lynch. Are you now receiving any moneys from the Chicago
model cities program ?
Mr. Nolan. Yes, we are. We are receiving, as of April 1, $1 million
to conduct a program which we are putting into effect immediately,
that will nm us through, budgetwise, June 30, 1974.
Mr. Lynch. And that will enable you to function with 81 aides;
is that correct ?
Mr. Nolan. Eighty-one aides and nine police officers.
Mr. Lynch. And that would be as compared with 422 aides prior
thereto and some 71 police officers.
Mr. Nol.\n. Yes.
Mr. Murphy. Counsel, may I interject at this moment?
Superintendent, what effect on crime statistics will reduction in
aides and police officers have ?
Mr. Nolan. Well, it would relieve us of the uniformed patrol of
the aides into all aspects of the community and I am sure that some
of the things that already have been brought to our attention, such
as businessmen who felt a degree of safety from the very fact these
satellite stations were located in the community; there were police
persomiel around as well as community service aides.
Again, the myriad of the services that have been offered by the aides
over the last few years is certainly going to have a great deal of
effect on what we would refer to as street crime.
Mr. Murphy. In other words, you see street crime rising as a result
of this cutback ?
Mr. Nolan. In these particular areas where these centers were lo-
cated, yes, I do.
Mr. Murphy. And the purpose of the Federal LEAA program
was to reduce your crime, was it not ?
Mr. Nolan. It certainly is, sir; at least that is what we were told.
283
STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH H. METCALFE, A U.S. REPRESENTA-
TIVE FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Metcalfe, we will be glad to have you par-
ticipate and ask any questions you desire.
Mr. Metcalfe. I would like to simply say I am of the opinion that
the relationship between the Chicago Police Department and the
Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration is not very cor-
dial, because the Chicago Police Department has not been very amen-
able to the demands and wishes of LEAA.
Recently they had an examination and they asked to come in and
monitor the captain's examination and they were denied that op-
portunity to come in. In March of this year they appointed three
consultants to look into the question of police policies and hiring
practices of blacks and other minorities. I think the record will show
that the blacks constitute 33 percent of the Chicago population, and
yet on the police force in excess of 13,000, the blacks constitute only
17 percent.
In the rank of captain we have only 1 percent black and above the
rank of captain, the appointed office such as the distinguished office
you have, only 7 out of 78, and 46 out of 2*26 youth officers are black.
Aren't yon really receiving the bnmt of the problem with the Fed-
eral Law Enforcement Assistance Administration because of your
desire to cooperate with them and from the statements given by Super-
intendent Conlisk after the report was mentioned by the Law En-
forcement Study Group that it was discredited and was found not to
be factual, when actually it was ?
Aren't you suffering as a result of this in the program that is admin-
istered by the community service program ?
Mr. Nolan. Mr. Congressman, I would hope that the Law Enforce-
ment Assistance Administration would not judge the worth of this
program by the kind of survery made of the department a short while
ago by its representatives. There are 13,000 police officers in our city
and I agree with your other facts entirely.
Yes, we, as minority members — and as I say, this is in a selfish way,
sir — would certainly like to see more blacks, Latins, in command posi-
tions within the department.
Unfortunately, we only have 17 percent at this time and I am sure
that you and the help you have given the department in finding the
recruits are very well aware of the fact the department left no stone
unturned in trying to get the young blacks, the young Latins to take
the police exam. I think the turnout was very good.
Unfortunately, the police department does not give the police exam.
Also, as the Congressmen is aware, and the gentlemen are, it is given
by the civil service commission. For those that have failed the exam,
unfortunately, the greater number percentagewise has been black.
Tutoring programs have been set up. We even conducted classes for
patrolmen and policewomen in our centers. This is also the function of
the centers, to find schoolteachers with the ability to volunteer to come
into the center to help the blacks and help the Latins take the police
exam. I think our problem is similar to other cities throughout our
Nation.
But again, sir, I would hate to think the LEAA would use that as
a criterion to deny fimding for a i)rogram such as this, that I think
284
goes above that factor, inasmuch as they are serving the human needs
of all people in the community in which they are now serving.
Mr. Metcalfe. Can it not l3e the fact the police department is under
the city administration and the civil service commission also is under
the city administration, and therefore they felt the city administra-
tion should take steps to eliminate the discriminatory practices that
actually exist at the hiring levels, and that is the reason there are only
17 percent blacks where they are turned down for the slightest excuse
and many of them not based upon fact?
At one time they were turned down because they said blacks have
flat feet and it was proven that flat feet were not a deterrent to a
policeman being an effective officer of the law. As a matter of fact, the
police department is motorized and, therefore, that did not hold water.
Recently, in the last few years they have turned blacks down and
accused them of having heart murmurs when, in fact, they have not
had heart murmurs. So as to cut down purposely on the number of
blacks in the police department.
Now, you cannot expect to have more black officers working in the
community services or any other department as long as this particular
practice exists. And it seems to me that you are in a vacuum here
because you are in need of additional black police officers, and yet the
civil service is not certifying them because of their discriminatory
practices.
Mr. Nolan. I would agree. Congressman, certainly the community
feels there is a need for another look at civil service entrance exams
for all people coming into the department today. They feel this is some-
thing that is important, and we have found has been causing quite a
few problems, especially among minority members.
The flat feet conce])t, as you mentioned, as you know, since the first
opposition to it had arisen a few years ago, has been taken out of their
concept of physical exam.
The heart murmur, whenever it occurs we certainly try to reach the
young man and ask him to go to his doctor and reapply. We found
many of our organizations in our city. Operation Push, Urban League,
other places such as that, have all contributed, seen to it the young
man was able to afford a medical examination and to attest to the fact
he did or did not have a heart murmur.
So I would agree with you.
Mr. Metcalfe. And is most cases they found that person did not
have a heart murmur, although the family physician for civil service
said that he did. Then upon submission of a statement from a duly
licensed cardiologist, they then admitted to him, w^hen they should have
admitted him in the first place.
Tlien, this situation got even worse, because then it became a matter
of them bringing in a statement signed by a licensed physician, who
was a heart specialist, and they said: "We say you have a heart
murmur," and the expert says, "You do not have a heart murmur,"
and he is still rejected.
Mr. Nolan. We certainly encourage all individuals who have been
turned down for that facet of physical problems to reapply. And the
matter you spoke of has certainly turned to the better for the man in
question and in some instances it has turned against him.
Mr. Metcalfe. You understand. Superintendent, of course, I am
not directing my remarks to you, because this is something over which
285
neither you nor the police department have any control because of
civil service.
Mr. Nolan. I understand, sir; yes.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Superintendent, you indicated you would hope
that LEAA would not evaluate this particular program on the basis of
the evaluation that was done in the department by their consultants.
In that regard, is it not the fact, sir, that on three separate occasions
the Chicago Police Department's police community service aides pro-
gram has been independently evaluated; once in 1970 by a private
consulting hrm; sliortly thereafter by Loyola University of Chicago;
and finally by the International Association of Chiefs of Police?
Mr. Nolan. Yes, it has.
Mr. Lynch. In your judgment, what were the salient findings of
those evaluations ?
Mr. Nolan. Very good, sir. I will be happy to answer that.
As you know, the Criminal Justice Educational Foundation that
evaluated our program in 1970 had some very valid concerns and
reconnnendations, and which have all been followed.
Prof. Paul Mundy of the Loyola University undertook a study of
the department, of which he commented on his phase I of the Illinois
Enforcement Committee hearings in 1972, in which Professor Mundy
stated that if this is how his taxes were spent, he wouldn't mind pay-
ing taxes. This was a public statement made by Professor Mundy at
this particular time.
Professor Mundy is now in this second phase of his evaluation of our
program. Also the Model Cities Administration is conducting their
second-year evaluation. We have been evaluated, I should say, also
by the Government Accounting Office, and I must say in all respect,
with the recommendations, and that is the first year growth that every-
one has. in such things as squad leadership, such things as sufficient
quarters, such things as community response.
We have found the evaluations — and we have copies here to be passed
out if you would care to look at them — ^the evaluations have been ex-
tremely favorable to a program of this nature. Naturally, no program
can rest on laurels of last year, but we are very happy to say this
I)rogram is continually evaluating itself.
The superintendent requires this on a monthly basis and we cer-
tainly attempt to direct it toward positive goals and accept recommen-
dations as we are able to handle them. The only recommendation that
was handed to us that we were not able to handle was to place aides
in squad cars. We felt because aides do not have arrest powers, because
the aides do not carry weapons, that placing them in squad cars in the
target areas in which they live and work would be too much of a
danger that we would not want to subject them to at that particular
time.
So they have not ridden in squad cars in the community in which
they are assigned.
Mr. Metcalfe. Superintendent, why is the police department so
secretive about releasing reports? I made a request for the report of
the International Association of Police Chiefs when they made their
study. And our Library of Congress informs us that the only way we
can get that report is for Superintendent A. P. Conlisk, Jr., to release
it. He has refused to release it to the Library of Congress and there-
286
fore it has not been made to me, as the Congressman, and especially
my district in Chicago.
Why it is we cannot get that report ?
Mr. Nolan. I am not aware of that, Congressman, but it would ap-
pear to me, just talking off the top of my head at this particular time,
that if a Congressman of the United States requests a report I am
sure the superintendent of police, if this is a matter that has been
brought to his attention, would certainly have answered at this par-
ticular time. I imagine it has been some time. The report is 2 years old.
Mr. Metcalfe. Normal channels is to go to the Library of Congress,
because they are our source for information and they, in turn, will ask
it and I am sure they asked for it in my name and indicated I was
desirous of getting that report.
Mr. Nolan. Could I take the liberty of following that up and get-
ting back to you ?
Mr. Metcalfe. I would appreciate it if you would do so.
Mr. Nolan. I will take the liberty of following up.
Mr, Lynch. Mr. Superintendent, it is your judgment that in a gen-
eral sense all of these separate evaluations of this program — and they
were field evaluations, I take it — were generally positive in nature?
Mr. Nolan. Yes ; they were, sir,
Mr. Lynch. I would like to read to you the introductory paragraph
from one of the evaluations. It says :
For the better part of the summer
and this is referring to the summer of 1970
The Criminal Justice Education Foundation with the assistance of the firm of
Ernst & Ernst has been engaged in evaluating the Chicago Police Department's
Police Community Service Aide Project. The summer has been a violent one.
During the months of June, July, and August 105 murders have occurred within
those police districts within which the community service aide project is op-
erating. During the same months, five Chicago police officers were murdered,
two of them in districts within which the project is operating.
Your testimony is that subsequently, perhaps due to this program,
the level of homicides in those districts dropped by almost 50 percent.
Is that correct ?
Mr. Nolan. Yes; 73 to 36. And I say this in this respect, sir: Our
figures naturally are taken from the police reports. I cannot say,
realistically, that every reduction in murder was due to an aide being
part of that prevention of a crime. But I say through the statistical re-
ports of the Chicago Police Department, m those particular areas —
and I am talking about beat numbers of district— in which the com-
munity service aide project operates there was this type of a reduction
in a 6-month period from September 1971 until February of 1972,
Mr, Lynch. Was the same reduction level, for instance a 50-percent
reduction in homicide from 73, 1 think you said, down to 36, apparent
in those police districts in which this program was not operatmg, or
do you know?
Mr. Nolan, We did not take a run of that type of statistics; no,
we did not.
Mr. Lynch. So there can be no question of prejudice, I suppose
that the record ought to show I served as project director for one of
these evaluations and had the pleasure of dealing with Superintendent
Nolan.
I
287
Superintendent, I wonder at this time if you could ask Lieutenant
Rottman to describe to the members of the committee what function
he serves in the department, what service center he conimanded. And
I think we would all be interested in hearing some of his new experi-
ences as a community service aide unit commander after a long period
of service as a regular Chicago policeman involved in street-level
enforcement.
Mr. Nolan. I would be happy to.
I would first like to say with respect to Lieutenant Rottman and
also Sergeant Chamberlin, as you know, this is a departure from
normal police procedure. A man working in this particular type
function has to have desire and attitude. All of the 71 sworn person-
nel who came into this program volunteered. I am happy to say this
gentleman that will now testify was on furlough at the time of the
selection, and on the very last day, came to work, heard about it, read
up on what the requirements were, applied, and was accepted almost
outright.
Lt. Herbert Rottman.
Mr. Lynch. Before you speak, Lieutenant Rottman, I would like
to tell the committee that the last time I saw you you were showing
me a shotgun blast through the front door of your center and took me
upstairs to show me where a molotov cocktail had been thrown the
night before.
Statement of Herbert R. Rottman
Mr. Rottman. That is true.
Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, as the deputy mentioned, I came into
the program at its very inception. I serve as the commanding officer
of the center in the Lawndale District of Chicago. It is the Fillmore
Police District, Lawndale Section.
I am located — you Congressmen have perhaps been in Chicago — at
Harrison and Sacramento.
Mr. Lynch mentioned the fact he made a visit to our center and,
unfortunately, the previous night or two nights to that, I had had an
attack upon the center. Presumably it was a gang we were in disfavor
with. But to prove a point, discussing the effectiveness of our program,
I think it was brought home so dramatically at this time.
I had conversation with residents who lived directly across the street
from the center. I am in a two-story brick structure. It was formerly
operated by a wire company. On the second floor level are offices and
here we conduct our class rooms, our inservice training. This is where
we hold our inspections and this is where we operate from.
The first floor level was formerly used for storage and it is similar
to a huge garage. The first floor level is now used mainly for the
youngsters in the neighborhood who come in very frequently after
school, but I don't want to digress.
Getting back to Mr. Lynoh's visit. As I say, we had been attacked
the night before and presumably it was a gang whom we weren't in too
good favor with and they threw a few Molotov cocktails against the
side of the building and one in my office.
But, talking about the effectiveness of our program, I had people
across the street come in to me personally, saying: "We see what is
288
going on over here. A group of boys came over and started to throw
these gasoline containers against the building."
But the surprising thing, gentlemen, around the corner came an-
other group of kids and they drove them off. They protected our little
center. It made me feel real good, the feeling that the residents wanted
us, they needed us, and they protected our little property. They, in
turn, are taking advantage of our center.
Getting back to the many things we do, I want to emphasize the
things that identify. We always do it in a team control concept, be it
visiting shut-ins, be it a door-to-door canvass to identify children who
may be victims of lead poisoning, sanitation irregularities, or lights out.
We are open until 8 o'clock in the evening; the late evening hours
the aides are out identifying reports on alley lights out or stredt lights
out. It is always with the team patrol concept.
We have uniforms like this young lady is wearing, green uniform
identifying her as a member of the police department, always accom-
panied by an officer.
I wear my uniform very proudly to work every day. I don't say it
as a cliche. I did. The sergeant here would appear in uniform. Also, we
are performing functions that maybe you wouldn't generally consider
a police officer should be performing. It was of necessity we did some
of these things, because there was no other agency to fill the void.
So, while we were out on surveys we were also out in a patrol concept
and we were, I feel, preventing an incidence of crime by our presence
on the street.
Mr. Lynch. Lieutenant, I wonder if I could interrupt to ask you if
you would tell the committee the service the organization performed in
reference to abandoned automobiles, and explain for those who are
not aware of the size of that problem in Chicago how bad it is, and
why abandoned autos can constitute a threat to the safety of people.
Mr. RoTTMAN. Surely. The number of cars abandoned on the streets
of Chicago is horrendous. People abandon them for various reasons ;
perhaps mechanically it just doesn't run any more and they can't af-
ford to have it fixed; they can't afford the license, things of this na-
ture; and they let them sit on the street. They park them and there
they are. They can create a real hazard.
No. 1, children are attracted to them; No. 2, they are a means of
people, derelicts, sleeping in the car. After weeks they become rat in-
fested. I think they contribute, I know they contribute, to the dete-
rioration of the neighborhood.
The responsibility of the aides when they went out on this patrol
was to identify these cars, to report on them, to prepare little reports
that were forwarded to the Fillmore district police who have "aban-
doned" officers working in this capacity to see the cars are eventually
towed.
We would set up the mechanism and forward the reports to them.
Normally this report is done by beat cops, police officers, so by
relieving them of this responsibility, we would take the time — "we"
meaning the aides — to identify these cars and prepare the reports and
allow the beat officer on that particular beat more time to concentrate
on the serious crimes.
Then subsequently, the cars would be towed and we have a f ollowup
program. They go back the next number of days to see that this work
was being done. And if it wasn't, we would have another report we
289
would prepare or would call the district commander, personally — and
we had a very good cooperation between the districts — and would
bring it to his attention and the car would be towed.
Mr. Lynch. You worked directly with the mayor's office of infor-
mation and inquiry. Explain how that operates.
Mr. RoTTMAX. Yes, sir. Right down the street from the center.
These reports we prepare, regulatory reports, will be forwarded to
the mayor's office and then they, in turn, would direct them to those
agencies that have the responsibility to correct the conditions that
we were reporting on : Broken sidewalks, abandoned cars, street lights
out, sanitation, dangerous porches, refrigerators abandoned, and
things of this nature.
Mr. Lynch. Lieutenant, I wonder if you could describe the racial
makeup of your aides and tell us how many aides were under your
command while you still had your service operating.
Mr. RoTTMAN. I had 39 aides, 5 patrolmen, 3 sergeants, and myself,
operating that little center. About 60 percent were female and 40
percent male. Toward the end of the program we were trying to cor-
rect it and bring it up to a 50-50-percent level.
Mr. Lynch. Is the neighborhood you were operating in predomi-
nantly black?
Mr. RoTTMAN. All black.
Mr. Lynch. Were the aides predominantly black?
Mr. RoTTMAN. All black.
Mr. Lynch. How were they selected?
Mr. RoTTMAN. Well, as the deputy mentioned, there was no criteria
other than residence criteria. We are obliged to live in the target area.
Mr. Lynch. What was the age range?
Mr. RoTTMAN. From 18, roughly, to 35. They made some exceptions
on the end of the 35. I know, in my instance I had a grandmother in
my program who, I would say, would be close to 50 years of age ; very
effective, though; very effective. This woman had an understanding
and compassion that we needed, desperately needed.
Mr. Lynch. The fact that there was no entrance examination, was,
T take it, intentional, and the motive was to pick people who could
communicate and who could understand the neighborhood in which
they lived ; is that correct ?
Mr. Nolan. Yet, it is.
The major factor, as stated, the only criterion being, to be a resident
of the neighborhood. We were seeking individuals, again, as I say,
no matter if they had a nice background or police record. In this
respect we had young men who had been involved in stealing cars and
purse snatching ; a young woman who had been involved as a prosti-
tute or arrested for shoplifting.
It was our feeling these individuals deserved a second, and in many
instances, a third chance.
Back to our employment criteria: Residency, as we mentioned
earlier, is tlie prominent one. Police record, if one has had problems
with the police, we believe the second and third chance is necessary.
There is a written examination given. The written examination has
no effect whatsoever on the person being employed. It just gives to us
a better idea of the need for an educational concentration.
290
The other criteria relating to height, weight, or anything else, is
completely ignored. We tried to select people who want to get involved
in work.
We found many of your young ladies and men also, who had been on
welfare, were very receptive to applying and reapplying and almost
demanding we hire them. As Lieutenant Rottman has stated, we
found we nad to relinquish the 17 to 33 age limit on men and 18 to
35 age limit on women simply because wiere were these kinds of
people that had the talent and desire and wanted to get into the
program. We decided to use a few and scatter them around and see
how well they would do and we found out they turned out to be some
of our better workers.
Mr. Lynch. Could you have Sergeant Chamberlin describe his
service ?
Mr. Nolan. We would be happy to.
Sergeant Chamberlin, by your wishes, Mr, Chairman, has brought
along a few slides. Unfortunately, they relate to his particular center.
If the committee would care to review them, they would take but a
few minutes.
Mr, Rangel, Before we get into the slides, I was interested, Mr,
Superintendent, in the fact that you seemed rather impressed with the
type of aides that you have been able to recruit to work in this very
exciting program. And yet earlier in your testimony you had indicated
that many of them were precluded from joining the police department
because of a civil service examination.
My question is : Is this examination administered by the city or by
the State?
Mr, Nolan. It is administered by the city of Chicago, the civil
service commission, a separate agency from the police department.
Mr. Rangel. From reading the activities of the aides and listening
to your testimony, I assume that after months or years of this type of
experience, that these aides — that is those without criminal re-cords —
have gained quite an expertise in many facets of police work.
Mr, Nolan. Yes, they have, sir ; and many have also gone on to law
enforcement activities other than the Chicago i)olice. One of the deter-
rent factors has been, Mr. Congressman, the height and weight re-
quirements of the civil service commission, and also the test Congress-
man Metcalfe spoke of has been a deterring factor. It is a very rigid
type test and, unfortunately, it has been a deterring factor for those
aides who have met the height and weight requirement, even with the
tutoring we have been able to give some of them in our particular
classes.
Here again, we find our civil service commission is not unique in this
area. This is something that is done throughout the country. All police
departments, and I think there is possibly something that is being
tested now in court — and that is civil ser\'ice exams throughout the
Nation. It is felt, due to the current level of young people that we
have, those of them that are interested in law enforcement, there is
going to have to be a need to look hard at civil service tests through-
out the Nation.
Mr. Rangel. I agree with you, Mr, Superintendent. I think this is
especially true of the Spanish, who do have less than the average
height requirement, but I am rather surprised that there is a difference
291
between the height and weight requirements as opposed to your age.
Could you elaborate on that, because we have rather rigid physical
requirements in New York, but our youngsters certainly can outrun
many of the people that are on the police department.
Mr. XoLAN. I am not surprised. Some of us in the department have
a tendency to lose our physical condition immediately afterward.
But in 1966, the Chicago Police Department at that time saw fit to
lower the height requirement from 5-foot 9 inches to 5-foot 8 inches.
And in 1966, because of our Latin citizens, it was necessary to lower
those requirements to 5-foot 7 inches.
In my communication with Puerto Rico it was determined that that
is also the requirement for police personnel there; namely, 5-foot 7
inches. So that is the height requirement as it stands now, and weight
is in comparison to one's height.
We recognize this problem could be further advanced as far as
bringing women into the program. Again, along your line of thought
it is found a woman 5-foot 2 inches is considered eligible for the police
department and will soon be assigned to the same type job — almost
same type job — as policemen are now handling.
So the question I am sure will come about: Why isn't this true for
men also ?
We visualize many types of problems of this nature coming up. But
again, I say these are the rigid requirements of our civil service com-
mission and until they are changed by law, we have to obey them.
Mr. Rangel. Am I to believe the physical requirements are the
greatest impediment to men getting on the police force, other than the
written examination ?
Mr. NoLAX. Those are all components. Each has a weight value.
The written test has a weight value, and the height. The physical re-
quirements have another weight value and unless a man is able to bal-
ance all of those into a passing grade, then he is summarily dismissed
or unable to pass the exam.
Mr. Metcalfe. Would you yield ? I think it ought to be also pointed
out, in the written examination there is no designation as to race,
wherein in the physical examination it is obvious what a person's race
maye be, and that may be a deterrent factor in having a minority.
Mr. Rangel. The direction of my question was whether or not the
civil service commission might consider the experiments that the aides
meet other requirements — other than the written requirements — might
consider that a factor without violating the high standards of the
municipal civil service in determining qualifications.
Mr. Nolan. We have attempted in the past, sir, to ascertain if points
of any type could be given to an aide taking a civil service exam. This
was not considered for the very obvious reason it was not included in
any of the civil service rulings, except a man or woman being a veteran
of the service. Other than that, no points could be given.
We were able to insert points in a civil service exam for aides who
were brought into a new position opened by the Chicago Police Depart-
ment, superintendent of police, of January 1, 1973, and that was
senior public service aides.
Now, of the 200 people who took that examination of which many
were our conmiimity service aides, not only because of the points, we
feel, but also because of their own aptitudes, out of the first 100, only
292
8 were not community service aides. All of the balance were community
service aides. In fact, the first 40 that were called were all community
service aides.
Mr. Rangel. Do you have a Chicago police union or benevolent as-
sociation ; that type of thing ?
Mr. Nolan. We have many in our city ; yes, we do. We have a pa-
trolmen's association, which amounts to five different ones, each rank
has its own association : the lieutenants, the captains, and the sergeant-s.
Mr. Rangel. What was their general attitude toward these proposals
to incorporate aides into the police department?
Mr. Nolan. They were not surveyed as to this. None of our police
associations Avere surveyed. I think I misinterpreted your question. I
think your question might have been, if I understand it correctly now,
do we have in our city one union that speaks for the police department ?
Mr. Rangel. No, sir. My experience is that our Police Benevolent
Association, which is the major police association, really fights des-
perately hard, political, to exclude any breakthroughs for minorities
in joining the police department, even if it is a new category or new
grade level being set up. I was concerned about the attitudes of the
police unions in Chicago.
Mr. Nolan. No ; we have one of our police associations that actually
conducts classes to bring minority groups in. In fact, we have two.
One is Latin American and the other is a black association. And Guard-
ians— three associations — also conduct classes and recruit young men,
minority groups, to teach them how to take the exam and come into
the department.
Mr. Rangel. Is there a residence requirement to become a regular
member of the Chicago police force ?
Mr. Nolan. Yes, there is. That has been changed on the last exam
of December 4, 1971. Now a person must be at the time of the examina-
tion a resident of the city. Previous to that it was within 6 months
move into the city, if one was called into the service. But now one has
to be a resident prior to taking the examination.
Mr. Rangel. I am shocked by the progressive nature of police de-
partments in Chicago compared to my home city of New York. Thank
you.
Mr. Nolan. I understand in some cities, for instance Washington, a
man can live within x number of minutes away from his assignment, a
suburban area or elsewhere, but due to the nature of large numbers
of people, we have 33 percent black. We have a great many Latin
citizens in our city and we felt it would be unfair to them to open the
examination up to those who were not city residents.
Mr. Murphy. Superintendent, are a lot of young people applying
for a job as a policeman today? Is it a very competitive field?
Mr. Nolan. Yes, it is. The last exam I spoke of, December 4, 1971, we
had 13,000 men on the job. The examinations that were received by the
Civil Service Commission totaled in excess of 9,000 ; 8,300 men showed
for the examination itself. Only 35 percent or 3,500 passed that ex-
amination. So we have a tremendous amount of people that do apply.
We have an excess amount of men that liave passed the exam. In
fact, we are trying to pull an additional 500 into this particular posi-
tion of patrolmen prior to June 30, 1973, because of the need.
Mr. Murphy. What is the starting salary of patrolmen ?
293
Mr. Nolan. In excess of $10,000. And at the end of 4 years his salary
increases to $14,000— $13,800.
Mr. Murphy. In other words there is a lot of competitiveness for
these jobs?
Mr. Nolan. There is. It is a salary that is in comparison to the aver-
age kind of salary. We reco^rnize, too, education plays a very big part,
althoiigli a college degree does not enter into the picture of a man ap-
plying^to the department. We recognize also in today's fair employ-
ment practices that many industries and businesses also are searching
for that minority citizen. We see him being pulled into other areas
othei- than law enforcement. Naturally, we applaud that.
Mr. Murphy. I yield to Congressman Metcalfe.
Mr. ]\Ietcalfe. Superintendent, is it not true that the Chicago police
patrolmen are the second highest paid in the United States?
Mr. Nolan. Yes ; they are, sir.
Mr. Metcalfe. Isn't it also true, now that they are the second high-
est paid there are more whites who are now applying because the job
is more appealing to them, and if the discriminatory practices were
eliminated there would be far more blacks with the police department?
Mr. Nolan. I would agree at this time only with the first part.
Mr. Metcalfe. In the last three or four examinations for patrolmen,
you have had an unusually large number of white applicants, have
you not?
Mr. Nolan. Yes, because of the salary.
Mr. Metcalfe. Thank you for yielding.
Mr. Murphy. I have no more questions.
Mr. Metcalfe. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Lieutenant Rottman some
questions ?
Chairman Pepper. Yes.
Mr. Metcalfe. Lieutenant Rottman, I think you indicated that you
have 39 aides, do you not ?
Mr. Rottman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Metcalfe. And five sergeants ?
Mr. Rottman. Three sergents, five patrolmen.
Mr. Metcalfe. Five patrolmen?
Mr. Rottman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Metcalfe. Is each patrolman assigned a certain amount of aides?
Mr. Rottman. Yes, sir; we have a regidar organizational chart. Our
little center makes up a company, and the company is broken down
into platoons, and platoons into squads. The platoon is commanded by
a sergeant and the squads are headed by patrolmen. They have 8 or 10
aides under their direction in the squad formation.
Mr. Metcalfe. In hearing Superintendent Nolan's testimony, he
took credit for the reduction of crime to some degree, but did not
take full credit for it, and yet I find that much of your work is, as your
title indicates, in community services.
Lead poisoning, you indicated you conduct surveys, you work in
sanitation, stolen automobiles. How much does that leave for actually
the deterrent of crime ?
Mr. Rottman. Their primary' requisite when they leave that center
is crime.
Mr. Metcalfe. How does sanitation relate itself to crime ?
294
Mr. RoTTMAN. In order to report on sanitation, they must be out and
they are visible in the neighborhood. They do wear a uniform; they
are accompanied by a police officer. So, sanitation would actually, in a
crime incidence, be secondary, naturally, to reporting on a sanitation
delinquency.
Mr. Metcalfe. It is the same with making surveys on the poisoning?
Mr. RoTTMAN. That is right. They are available to the people in the
area.
Mr. Metcalfe. Isn't that a duplication of effort? In the case of
your CCO's in Chicago, your urban progress centei'S send out teams
ito check on lead poisoning. Aren't you duplicating that effort?
Mr. RoTTMAN. This is the amazing part. We have an urban progress
center a few blocks from our center that actually does the lead poison-
ing testing, but it is surprising how many of the families — firet of all,
they are not aware of it for some reason. They do not comprehend all
of the services that are available for them.
Mr. Metcalfe. I submit to you this is one of their major projects,
to send out their aides from these centers to do a door-to-door survey.
It seems to me it is a duplication of effort that they are going to do.
Maybe you are saying they are not doing the job if you have to come
behind them and find these families to educate them on the serious
effects of lead poisoning.
Mr. Nolan. I would make the apology, Mr. Congressman, if the im-
pression was given that our function alone is that of a contributing
factor to the reduction of a degree of crime. As Lieutenant Rottman
stated, certainly we recognize in all of the communities, confusion,
attitudinal change, the acceptance of police responsibility, as that
agency is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week when one needs
service, this is the agency that they call.
If it is something that is of a nonpolice nature and we find that it is
necessary, we address ourselves to it. We do work in conjunction with
the agencies you spoke of. Naturally, because there is expertise, we
find it necessary that working with them helps our job as well as it
helps ourselves.
As being said by Lieutenant Rottman and myself, we feel that by
providing service, or showing people how they can give service, it
would take away the opportunity to rise up in frustration, to allow
themselves to get just in a state of frustration about what goes on in
the.community.
One of the most disturbing factors I think we find among our low
socioeconomic groups in our country is that there is no opportunity
to make change and if people can get involved in ways of making
change, such as a child being sick and where to take it; how to avoid
the lead poisoning. We recognize in the black community that sickle
cell anemia is one of the most disruptive types of diseases that occurs
in our race, that these young people — as part of their duties — can
direct families, even force families to submit their children to this
type of examination in conjunction with the Chicago Health Depart-
ment.
We feel this service, although it is far removed from normal police
procedure, is something that is a contributing factor to that commu-
nity's welfare.
295
Mr. Metcalfe. I would like to ask Lieutenant Kottman a question
and then I want to ask Mrs. Annette Jungheim a question along the
same lines.
You are a supervisor by virtue of your rank, so is Sergeant Chamber-
lin. Would you give me a typical day for a patrolman. What does the
patrolman do on a typical day ? I would like to know from you what
does an aide do after he finishes.
Mr. RoTTMAN. Working hours, we have two watches — a second
watch and third watch. The first watch works from eight in the
morning until 4 in the afternoon. The aide comes into our center,
they sign in. They are required to sign in. Then we have roUcall.
And it is conducted either by a sergeant, by a patrolman, or both.
Generally, the patrolman is Involved with his sergeant in making
his rollcall.
We discuss matters pertinent to the neighborhood; we distribute
daily bulletins — bulletins published by the police department — con-
taining lists of stolen automobiles, licenses, persons wanted. The
patrolman conducting this rollcall would refer to anything in this
daily bulletin that may have occurred in our particular target area —
perhaps persons wanted, missing persons primarily. We are very con-
cerned about this, plus bringing to the aides' attention the fact that
there are a number of licenses now published. "Please when you are out
on the street, carry this daily bulletin and be aware of it."
We have uniform inspection conducted by the sergeant in con-
junction with the patrolman. We have inservice training of mostly a
half hour — 45 minutes in the morning. A majority of our mornings
are kind of rush because we are out on school patrol. The patrolman
in the squad patrols our local schools because we have quite an
incidence of older children attacking the younger children.
The aides, their work responsibility in the morning is our school
patrols. In fact, in conjunction with some of the directors of the
different schools we have set up safe school routes where the children
are advised to "Take this route; it will be controlled by community
service aides along with this patrolman." The patrolman has a re-
sponsibility of the activities of the aides on the street. He directs
them; he guides them; and he is with them.
The school patrol — we are there in the capacity, our attitude was
and is: here we are; how can we help you? I repeat again, that is
so important. The officers in uniform, the aides in uniform.
Mr. Metcalfe. How do you coordinate that activity of patrolling
a school along the safe routes, telling them how to avoid the turfs
controlled by the street gangs, as related to the work of the youth
division of the police department ?
Mr. RoTTMAN. First of all, when the safety routes are designed,
or are identified, then the children in an assembly are advised to
take these particular routes. We also work very closely with local
district youth officer and he is advised of these routes. These are
identified to him, and all three of the schools in my area have an
officer or school patrol officer right in the school; he stays in the
school proper.
We also keep in contact with the regular school patrols. We have
X number of vehicles throughout the city manned by police officers
who do emphasize their attention to the school areas. And we work,
P
95-158 O — 73 — pt. 1 20
296
all three are working in conjunction with each other regarding the
safety of the kids, not only in the morning hours, but at noon recess.
Recently we had what we called "closed campuses," they haven't
been going home ; they find it better to keep the kids at school. Also
in the evening, in the afternoon when the children leave the schools,
the aides are there out on patrol.
Mr. Metcalfe. That is a typical day for you ?
Mr. RoTTMAN. Yes, sir. Then when they finish their school patrol
they are assigned to beat areas. They carry a regular beat map that
the officers in the district carry. They are assigned to particular areas.
We may concentrate one day on one particular irregularity — "Let's
be very observant for thefts."
We may change from day to day, whatever they are emphasizing,
they are looking for. But it is a case of walk and talk to the people
in the area.
Mr. Metcalfe. How many vehicles do you have in an area ?
Mr. Rottman. I have two station wagons assigned to my center.
Mr. Metcalfe. Mrs. Jungheim, would you tell me what a typical
day is for an aide ?
Statement of Annettee K. Jungheim
Mrs. Jungheim. First of all, I would like to talk with regard to
lead testing in our program.
In our program, while you may say it was a duplicate of what
community reps did, we used to view our job as kind of a duplica-
tion, but we realized that if we worked together we would do more.
So last year our program in Chicago was brought to Washington
at the Mayor's Conference on Lead Testing and Poisoning and it is
going to be used as a model throughout the Nation because we were
highly successful.
This was coordination of community service aides, community reps,
mayor's office and I. I worked very closely with that program, coor-
dinating it uptown and then to the Lakeview area.
So I say, while we do duplicate it, we really extend the effort. The
previous summer we had 250, last year 1,500.
Mr. Metcalfe. May I interrupt your testimony to ask you: Are
you in a supervisory capacity ?
Mrs. Jungheim. No, sir.
Mr. Metcalfe. You are a typical aide out in the community working ?
Mrs. Jungheim. Yes, sir.
Mr. Metcalfe. What else do you do ?
Mrs. Jungheim. We have our school patrol like the lieutenant
mentioned. Not only are we on the street to make our presence known,
to guide the children, see they get home safely, we kind of like to
rap with kids, see what kinds of problems they have. We organize
trips, organize activities, realizing there is a lot of idle time. We
organize the movie programs because the kids in our neighborhood
don't have the money to go to the local shows and it gives them
something to do.
We talk to residents, let them know what is available. Part of the
problem, the uptown has like 110 social service agencies. It was to get
this inforaiation out to community residents, how best to use these
297
social service agencies available. So wc would pass out fliers informing
the people what was available.
I must have attended something like 200 workshops in people's
homes and senior citizens' homes, telling them about our program,
about the services the police department provides, how best to use
these services, how to report crime efficiently, properly, who to call.
There is a lot of misinformation about crime or how policemen do
things.
So we try to do this, in addition to being on the street and getting
to know commimity residents. You had the cop on the corner; now
you have the aide on the beat. And this is some of the things I have
been involved in.
I think Wayne has been involved in other sorts of things. I orga-
nized a lot of programs.
Mr. Metcalfe. Before we go to Mr. Crosby, you pointed out how to
report crime. Have you had any success in actually reporting crime in
the community ?
Mrs. JuNGHEiM. Yes, sir; I think we increased the reporting of
crime. Maybe they won't call the police sometimes, but they will walk
into the center and say, "Hey, you know, something is going on on the
corner,"' or "Yesterday I had my purse snatched. I would like to re-
port it." So then we make the call. We have the beat car come and the
report is made.
Mr. Metcalfe. From my experience it has been just the opposite,
that people are very reluctant to report crime. I imagine it is because
they fear the criminal, they fear being intimidated by the criminal,
and they lack confidence in the police department. That is the reason
1 asked you whether or not you had any success.
I tried, and so did an organization I headed up. They met with
absolutely no success, even with 6,000 members who signed up for the
Third Ward Committee on Crime Prevention. People were not report-
ing it because of their evaluation of the policemen and of not having
any confidence in them. That is the reason I wanted to know what suc-
cess you have had in getting people.
I agree, and I think you will agree with me, that they see crime, all
of us see crime committed in the inner city. And especially in the
Model Cities areas, but they don't report it for those reasons.
Mrs. Jungheim. I will say one thing, Mr. Metcalfe, and that is if
we go out in one of our local meetings and explain to folks how to
report crime and they do report it and they don't get the kind of
service they expect they should get, they will let us know about it.
And by living in that community I have people come to me at the
grocery store, at the stoplight, and say, "Hey, you told me how to do
something and it didn't work."
So we do a followup and see what went wrong and bring this to the
attention of our supervisor, lieutenant, or district commander and
work toward improving police response to a call for service.
Mr. NoLAX. I might add just for a moment to the question asked —
I think it is a very important one — and that is with respect to con-
fidence our citizens have in police.
I recognize that in the area the Congressman is speaking of it is
a difficult matter. It was a difficult matter for many reasons and that
is the citizens have the feeling in many instances, police service will
298
not be granted. I think this is the kind of thing we are talking about
in programs of this nature. The confidence of the citizen and the need
of cooperating with the police, their participation in law enforcement
for at least controlling crime, which we recognize is a very, very
difficult matter.
Crime prevention and crime control are easier said than done.
But what I think is important is there are 422 aides scattered in
the city of Chicago that has something like 3.5 million people and I
know a good third of those people need all of the help that is possible.
And the fact of calling the police and the police don't respond, our
superintendent has set up many safeguards where there is an avenue
of complaint that should be answered.
We recognize we are never going to satisfy all of our citizens, but
I think it is important, as Mrs. Jungheim stated, that where there
have been failures, and I agree with the Congressman saying it has
to be brought to the police attention immediately, something has to
be done.
Mr. Metcalfe. Superintendent, at one time the Concerned Citizens
for Police Reform, of which I am a member, had some negotiations
cut off by the superintendent at the request of the mayor. We had
policemen who were instructed by the superintendent to get out of
their squad cars 1 hour a day and walk the streets. I found that to
be very effective, but what has happened to that program ? They are
not doing it now.
Mr. Nolan. Unfortunately, at that particular time we were using
mostly one-man cars and we used it with the one exception of beat
patrol and the use of the hand-held radio. Unfortimately, because of
"an increase of crime it was taken for a short period of time. But
as the Congressman is most likely aware, just 2 weeks ago we trans-
ferred over 250 men out of traffic. These men are now assigned to beat
cars, partly on the day, but especially the afternoon watch, 4 to 12
and the first watch, 12 at night to 8 in the morning.
All cars, especially in 95 percent of our beats, are now manned by a
two-man system and part of these people's function, especially in the
neighborhood and business area from 4 to 12, is to park the car, for
one man to get out of the car, to stay within sight, if you will, of that
particular beat car, but to patrol on foot.
We agree without a doubt that the essence of the police concept of
removing men from the post on the foot patrol has not been a good
factor in our mobility of trying to cover all of the beats in our city.
We recognize it is a must that people get back on the street. Many
of the men who came out of traffic were placed in our Loop area. Loops
throughout the Nation, or shall I say the downtown area of our Nation,
have suffered for lack of police patrols.
In the city of Chicago the superintendent has issued as of April 1,
a department order that policemen would patrol on foot in the Loop
area all hours of day and night. This is being done for the sole pur-
pose of curtailing crime and giving all of our citizens a feeling of
safety in that particular area.
Mr. Metcalfe. It is also because of the vast billions of dollars that
are vested in the downtown area and that is protection for the busi-
nessman's interest, but not in the community where the crime exists. I
submit to you that this program is not in effect now and I would like
to be proven wrong. I know it was in effect and it was very effective,
299
but I submit to you it is not in effect. These two-man squad cars are
not getting out of their car and walking the streets as they did for a
short period of time right after we conducted our hearings in Chicago,
and brought so much attention to the poor police community relation-
ships that exist in Chicago.
Mr. Nolan. Approximately 1 year ago, in our 19 police districts in
the matter now bein^ addressed by the Congressman, a pilot project
of a police officer usmg the hand-held radio, patroling a designated
post, was utilized by the superintendent and found to be fairly success-
ful. This same program was, should I say, put aside for a short period
of time for lack of personnel. Now these new men we are speaking of
have been hired. Now the cars have gone into the two-man concept.
I am very sorry to hear that in the area that has been addressed to
by the Congressman it has not occurred, but I would like to say we
certainly would like to have an opportunity to have it brought to the
Congressman's attention as quickly as possible, that this type of patrol
system is in effect, hopefully in effect with the cooperation and support
of business, and as he stated earlier, resident people to have a feeling
of safety.
It is important that policemen patrol the inner city. It is important
that policemen get out of their cars in the inner city because this is
wliere the problem lies. If the lady does not feel safe in going to the
store at 6 o'clock in the evening that is just a block from her home, then
our cities are in trouble, and this is the kind of condition we are to
alleviate.
Mr. Metcalfe. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence. You
have been more than kind, but there is one question I would like to ask
of you.
Was Superintendent James Conlisk, Jr., invited to come before this
committee and testify ?
Chairman Pepper. I am informed the superintendent was invited.
Mr. Metcalfe. May I, at this particular time, enter into the record
some questions I would have asked the superintendent? One is: As a
result of the LPLVA study of the Chicago police, that it found out the
Chicago civilian death rate in the hands of law enforcement officers
was almost li/4 times the rate of Philadelphia ; more than three times
the rate of New York, Los Angeles, Detroit; and 75 percent of the
civilians killed by police officers in the Chicago area are predominately
blacks.
I would have asked him about the charges of police brutality and
why there is a lessening of confidence on the j^art of the people, which
goes to the heart of the question I asked Mrs. Jungheim a moment
ago — because of the lack of confidence in them.
I would have asked him whether or not the efficiency rating system,
the disciplinai'v system, and appointment of specialized duties systems,
have been changed to eliminate discrimination in the city departments.
I would have asked him also how is it that within the police depart-
ment— this is not civil service — they have psychological examinations,
and why it is that the policemen who have been found to be psycho-
logically unfit are passed in the examination and then are assigned to
high crime areas, which is in the inner city, during their first tour of
duty, rather than to have them eliminated when it has been proven
they are sadists or they are racists or they are inclined to be.
300
I would have asked him those questions, because my information
comes from a former member of the police department. He was a civil-
ian, Mr. Mendelson, who is a psychologist, and who made these exami-
nations, gave his report to the police department, and still they hired
them.
And this has been a cause of it.
I would have also pointed out to him that as a result of being a mem-
ber of a commission that was appointed by Mayor Daley, known as the
Austin Commission, which I sat on, it was found out that the basic
cause of the riots on the West Side following the assassination of Dr.
Martin Luther King came as a result of the pent-up feelings that people
had in that particular community against the police.
I would have pointed out to him that the other riot they had, again
where a woman was killed by the lamp post that was knocked down
by a firetruck, was the result of the pent-up feeling. And I say that
you are working at a distinct disadvantage when you have to work
under that cloud of a condition where the people if they do make a
report they then become the defendant in the case and therefore you
have not had many people to come forward.
Those would have been some of the questions I would have asked
the superintendent; but I do not ask the deputy superintendent, be-
cause he is not in authority to make that determination.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Nolan. I would like to make one exception here. The superin-
tendent of police has been sick since the first of the week and that is one
of the reasons why his presence is not here today, sir.
Chairman Pepper. We will move along. We are running a little be-
hind in our time schedule.
Mr. Lynch, do you have other questions ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes, I think it is important to point out that the police
officers and the aides who are here with us today are involved in a
program which is certainly attempting to alleviate some of the condi-
tions which Congressman Metcalfe has discussed. ■
I would like to clarify one point, getting back to the community
service aides program. Is it not the case. Superintendent, that when
aides perform street level duties involving school patrols, lead poison-
ing surveys, abandoned auto surveys, housing code violations, and the
like, that they are at the same time performing a very conspicuous
patrol or quasi-patrol function ?
Mr. Nolan. Yes, they are. Their mere uniform's presence being a
deterring factor. As we all know, it is difficult to identify and to make
statistics on what effect a patrolman in a squad car would have on the
prevention of crime. And the same thing goes with an aide.
I think it is fair and I think it certainly can be documented at this
particular time, and we relate to you some of the incidents where these
aides have assisted in the arrest or causing the arrest of individuals
committing crimes.
Mr. Lynch. I wonder if we might do that a few minutes later. Would
it be fair to say, that while this may duplicate work other agencies are
doing, it is work in which they are making police contacts with the
citizens and pointing out that the police department provides services
and help ?
Mr. Nolan. Yes. Very much so, Mr. Counselor.
301
Mr. Lynch. I wonder if you could now ask Mr. Chamberlin if he
would be kind enough to show the committee the slides about the
program.
Mr. Sandman. Before you get into that may I ask the superintend-
ent another question.
I read over your objectives and I think they are good. The thing
that concerns me a little bit here is that although almost all of your
activity is directed to the streets, mainly young people, I don't see
anything here — you may have covered this during my absence and if
you have, I apologize — with what happens on the school grounds.
This committee liad hearings around the country and we found that
especially in the cities the drug trafficker was safer in a schoolyard
than he was outside the schoolyard. And I am wondering why in your
discussion of what you do there isn't more activity here on the super-
vision within the school grounds. Has there been any activity in that
line?
Mr. Nolan. Yes, there has. First, I would like to say that within the
school ground itself, within the building, it is necessary for us to ob-
tain permission. As Congressman Metcalfe stated we do have in our
school grounds school patrol officers that work out of the youth divi-
sion. We also have school visitation officers whose main job is to bring
to the students within the school those concepts of things such as nar-
cotics and drugs ; what the law is ; what their responsibility is.
But as far as the aides themselves are concerned, we have found it
necessary to go into the schools at the elementary level, at the sixth
grade level, to give instructions, with the permission of the board of
education, as to the evils of narcotics. This is done, not necessarily in
all of its entirety by the aides themselves, in conjunction with another
factor of this bureau, and that is the neighborhood relations sergeant
and the school visitation officer.
Charts are made up, examples of drugs that are not real, examples
of drugs shown to young people in these grades. We felt they might
have been too yoimg at one time, but through the board of education's
decision we were allowed to come into the schools to start this.
We recognized in too many instances the drug problem begins at
that young level, especially the high school.
Mr. Lynch. Superintendent, could you tell the Congressman
whether or not aides, in their 455-hour training program, are given
any training in drug addiction problems ?
Mr. Nolan. PreserAdce and inservice ; yes, they are.
Mr. Sandman. In our hearings we had in New York we were told
stories that you just couldn't possibly believe, but they were true,
about the trafficking. It was safer to pass any kind of drug inside the
yard than it was outside the yard.
We brought in the school board and we asked them what activities
they were conducting to try to curtail this and they pointblank took
the position that theirs was an obligation that pertained to the train-
ing of the students and theirs was not an obligation pertaining to the
enforcement of the law within the school.
Have you run into that kind of difficulty?
Mr. Nolan. On the first of April, the department issued a new
organizational chart — and this is another reason why the superin-
tendent isn't here — called bureau of investigative services. Within
that bureau there is called a game crime unit whose specific responsi-
302
bilities will rely on young people, especially those around the school-
yard peddling drugs. I am sorry, I was not aware the questioning
would have gone into this area or I could have brought some of this
premature evidence of their success in trying to stop drug traffic.
This is one of the greatest problems that faces our Nation. The
school systems do have a problem addressing themselves to that par-
ticular point.
Some citizens in our city, I don't know about other cities, took it
upon themselves in June of 1971 to conduct classes for their own teach-
ing staff to make them aware of the evils of drugs and how to detect
the same being used in their classrooms.
Mr. Sandman. Do you believe, Superintendent, that it is necessary
to have police on the high school grounds in the big city area ?
Mr. Nolan. I think in some of the schools in our city that it is not
only necessary but it is almost compulsory we have police officers in
some respect. I recognize this is not a good thing. I recognize this
does not lend toward good education. But I think in order for the
schools themselves to be conducted in an orderly fashion, law enforce-
ment forces are there at auxiliary or assigned on a regular basis.
I think it something some of our schools do need.
Mr. Sandman. Do you have any kind of law in Chicago, or Illinois
for that matter, that requires a schoolteacher, if she has reason to be-
lieve the student has any kind of drugs or paraphernalia, must take
it away?
Mr. Nolan. In our school system we have a different system. The
board of education provides auxiliary personnel who are off-duty
policemen, hired by the board to work in the schools. They notify the
office where the police officer is usually found and he immediately goes
to the room and conducts whatever activity is necessary in this area.
The schoolteachers themselves, we would prefer for them not to get
involved unless of actual necessity.
Mr. Murphy. Would the gentleman yield in that regard?
The mayor and city council in Chicago passed an ordinance pro-
hibiting loitering around grammar schools and high schools. Police
intelligence indicated that cars driven by people obviously beyond the
school age would attract clusters of kids for the purpose of selling pills
and hard narcotics. That ordinance was struck down by the court as un-
constitutional in that the city did not have the right to police the
school grounds in that way. That was one of the handicaps we faced.
Mr. Sandman. Out of curiosity, what court ?
Mr. Murphy. The Federal court.
Mr. Sandman. Under this system that you talk about in Chicago —
let me give you this kind of hypothetical case : The schoolteacher has
reasonable cause to believe a particular student has drugs in his desk
drawer, his locker, or his jx>cket. As I understand what you say, she
doesn^t have a responsibility to require him to give that to her, but she
must notify someone in that school that does. Is that true?
Mr. Noi^A.N. I think she has a responsibility, which all of us should
undei-stand and follow, that when any activity of crime, believed to be
crime, is within a person's scope that they should notify that person in
authority, be it her opinion to notify the officer to get up there immedi-
ately or to, if he has reasonable grounds to believe the individual has
303
contraband within his locker, within his desk, it would give the officer
reason to believe this person should be searched, then this is done.
Naturally, with the individual's rights in concern.
Mr. Sandman. Under your law, does that individual, meaning the
police or whoever it is who is called in, have the right to require the
student to surrender the contraband ?
Mr. Nolan. In our city, by State law, he does have that right.
Mr. Sandman. Thank you.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Lynch, are you ready for the slides now ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes, sir, I am.
[At this point in the hearing slides were presented by Sgt. John
Chamberlin.]
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might proceed to ask Mr.
Crosby several questions?
Statement of Wayne Crosby
Chairman Pepper. Yes, please do.
Mr. Lynch. I wonder if you would t«ll us how long you have been
a community ser\nce aide?
Mr. Crosby. I have been a community service aide for almost 3 years.
Mr. Lynch. How old are you ?
Mr. Crosby. Twenty-four.
Mr. Lynch. What kind of employment did you have prior to join-
ing this program ?
Mr, Crosby. I was a taxi driver.
Mr. Lynch. Why did you join this program ?
Mr. Crosby. Well, it gave me an opportunity to help out in the com-
munity, plus further my education.
Mr. Lynch. Further your education in what way ?
Mr. Crosby. I was a dropout prior to coming into the program.
Mr. Lynch. How has this program helped you in that regard ?
Mr. Crosby. It has helped me obtain a G.E.D. diploma, plus college
credits.
Mr. Lynch. Do you attend classes at the program's expense?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, I did.
Mr. Lynch. And you are given time off for that ?
Mr. Crosby. Well, as stated earlier, we are allowed 9 hours a week
to attend school, G.E.D. training or college courses.
Mr. Lynch. Is this a common thing among the aides? How many of
your colleagues who are aides also attend school ? A large number ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. Would you tell us what the normal course of a day's
activities is — what do you do as a community ser\ace aide?
Mr. Crosby. Well, I normally go out on foot patrol and school
patrol, covering the schools, making sure that kids aren't harassed or
abducted into abandoned buildings close by.
Mr. Lynch. Do you regard yourself as performing at least quasi-
law-enforcement functions?
Mr. Crosby. Beg pardon ?
Mr. Lynch. Do you perform law enforcement functions?
Mr. Crosby. Well, no — yes, in a sense.
304
Mr. Lynch. In what sense ?
Mr. Crosby. We write up violations to city ordinances.
Mr. Lynch. On a typical day, how much time might you spend on
actual foot patrol, walking through a neighborhood?
Mr. Crosby. Seven hours.
Mr. Lynch. And are other aides with you on that kind of patrol
duty?
Mr. Crosby. Oh, yes.
Mr. Lynch. How many ?
Mr. Crosby. Quite a few. There's about eight of us.
Mr. Lynch. Are you accompanied by a regular Chicago policeman ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, we are.
Mr. Lynch. How many ?
Mr. Crosby. Well, one supervisor, and there is a sergeant up over
him.
Mr. Lynch. Do you attend community meetings with citizens in
your community ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, I do.
Mr. Lynch. What do you do at those meetings ?
Mr. Crosby. We have various workshops such as you have seen in
the film up there, but the tutoring programs we have for kids and
various different things that we intend to have at later dates.
Mr. Lynch. Based on your 8 years' experience, is it your feeling
that you have in some way contributed to reducing crime in the
neighborhood in which you serve ?
Mr. Crosby. Yes, I feel we have. Just by our presence alone, you
know.
Mr. Lynch. Superintendent, I wonder if I could ask you whether
or not it would be your judgment that this kind of program ought to
be continued at its f onner level in your department ?
Mr. Nolan. I believe it should be continued at the level that it was
at. I daresay, and I would be the first to admit that there are a lot of
kinds of things we were doing that we found in later months of con-
tinuous operation that could be done a different way that would better
the citizens.
I think some of the programs that we initially started out on, we
finally dropped to pick up better programs. Unfortunately, there was
nothing we had throughout our Nation to model this type program
after. So, consequently, as we see the variations of crime and how a
paraprofessional can become involved that has no arrest power, that
carries no weapons, but still can make a contributing factor toward
the reduction of crime, and I think there are many kinds of improve-
ments that could be made on programs of that nature.
We would not stay in a staid position. I think it should be carried on.
Mr. Lynch. In fact, you are implementing a program which was, in
a sense, recommended by the President's Commission on Law Enforce-
ment and Administration of Justice in 1967 ?
Mr. Nolan. Yes, we are.
Mr. Lynch. And probably constitutes the only department, cer-
tainly to my knowledge, that is doing it on a large scale. Would it be
your judgment that this is the kind of program which should receive
Federal support on a priority basis?
Mr. Nolan. I would say yes ; and I would think it would be a fine
thing for our Government to recognize a program of this nature with
305
citizen participation as one way that the total Nation could be involved
and benefit from reduction of crime, which is a major factor in our
society today.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Nolan, as a policeman with many, many years of
law enforcement experience, would it be your judgment that this kind
of program should be adopted for use in most of our major urban
centers ?
Mr. Nolan. Yes. I think certainly it would have to be patterned as
to their particular needs, but I think all of our major cities could use
a program of this nature and certainly of this size in comparison with
their population, to help in this effort.
Mr. Lynch. Superintendent, if you have not already done so, would
it be possible for you to send us comparative crime data on the district
in which your program has operated ?
Mr. Nolan. Yes, we would, sir. And by permission of the chairman,
we would like to ask permission to enter an item, various items of
specialized efforts by this particular program as it relates to edicts
from the department and also rules and regulations under w^hich they
work. If it is permissible we would like to have it entered in the record
at this time.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, the superintendent has given me a very
good summary describing what this program is all about, and describ-
ing its accomplishments. I would ask that this be entered in the
record, with your permission.
Chairman Pepper. Without objection, it will be admitted into the
record.
[See material received for the record at the end of Mr. Nolan's
testimony.]
Mr. Lynch. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. I would
just like to commend Superintendent Nolan for the fine job and the
leadership that he has demonstrated on the Chicago police force. As a
Congressman from the Chicago area, I know that Chicagoans are
very proud of their police force and men such as Superintendent Nolan.
I would also like to thank the fine group of associates Mr. Nolan has
brought with him for their attendance and valuable comments.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Metcalfe, have you further questions?
Mr. Metcalfe. I have no further questions. I would like to also ex-
press my thanks to Superintendent Nolan and all of the very fine people
who are here to demonstrate what this community service program is.
Regretfully, I have to look upon it as being an oasis in the police de-
partment.
You are doing a good job and you are giving a good image to the
police department. If all of the rest of these departments were con-
tributing to society's needs, I think we would have a good police de-
partment in the city of Chicago, which we do not have now.
Mr. Nolan. Thank you. Congressman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Nolan, I wish, on behalf of the committee, to
thank you and your associates for coming here this morning and giving
us the very interesting presentation you have made. The idea of the
police department wishing to identify itself more closely with all of
the different areas and the different people of the district it serves, I
tliink, is a very conmiendable one.
306
Undoubtedly, the people can help the police enormously to reduce
crime and make it possible to prosecute crime if they work in cordial
cooperation with the police department.
The folks must be made to feel that the police department is their
protector, their friend ; not their enemy. It is to their advantage and
to their interest that they work cooperatively with it, because as they
help to protect somebody else, some other citizen, that same procedure
may later protect them against crime.
The purpose of these hearings is to bring out these innovative pro-
grams in the country that various police departments are carrying on.
We still have, despite all of the excellence of what is now being done
in the country, a large volume of violent and serious crime. That is
still a challenge that we have to meet some way or another. What would
you suggest could be done ?
Wliat could be done if you had the cooperation of Congress, the
cooperation of the State legislature, the cooperation of your munici-
pal authorities in addition to what is now being done to further reduce
violent and serious crime in Chicago ?
Mr. Nolan. Well, Mr. Chairman, I wish there was a simple answer
to that, but I am sure that your committee and yourself are probably
way ahead of us as law enforcement personnel. We recognize this
as probably one of the biggest problems facing our nation. We recog-
nize the problem of crime encompasses more than the violations of
law and the breaking of the laws themselves.
Our citizens have so many frustrations of the social economy, of the
housing problem, of the unemployment. If our Federal Government
would look kindly on finding ways to helping in this solution, the
whole concept of impartially regarding all of our citizens in employ-
ment and in housing, I think it would be a step, a long step, in the
right direction.
I think most of our crime, some of it of a petty nature that grows
into a major nature, is born from frustration; is born from emotional
impact from which there is no way out, that people are not considered
equal citizens.
I think that many of these things are necessary to bring to the atten-
tion of the citizen that he has a responsibility, a serious responsi-
bility, of obeying'the law. I think it is a responsibility that many of
our citizens are not cognizant of or do not follow.
I think with the cooperation of the Federal Government, of the
Congress, these kinds of things certainly could be addressed.
Chairman Pepper. Last Friday morning in Miami, which is my
home, I participated in some hearings before the Education and
Labor Subcommittee of the Congress. We talked about the inade-
quacy of Federal aid in keeping young people in school from being
dropouts. I asked, "What would be the significance of the student in
school dropping out ?"
And they answered that 'generally speaking they found their way
into the juvenile courts. And we found out from juvenile judges who
testified before our committee that about 50 percent of the boys and
girls who are seriously involved before the juvenile courts go on into
greater and more serious crime and wind up in our State penal
institutions.
Do you have a school dropout problem in Chicago ?
307
Mr. Nolan. A very serious one, sir. And it is very high among mi-
nority groups, blacks and Latins. I think it is higher among the Latins
than the blacks.
Chairman Pepper. Do you find a relationship between school drop-
out and j u venile crime ?
Mr. Nolan. Without a doubt. Our crime statistics will show that
a larger portion of our crime is committed by juveniles; and we find
of those juveniles that are committing crimes a greater proportion
of those young people are school dropouts.
Chairman Pepper. So that if we could just adequately cope with
that one problem
Mr. NoLAX [continuing]. It would be very helpful.
Chairman Pepper. We would reduce the commission of serious crime
and violent crime by a high percentage, would we not?
Mr. Nolan. Very much so, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. This committee had some hearings in Philadel-
phia 2 or 3 years ago because they had gang warfare there. And the
year before we were there, 31 young men were killed in that gang
warfare that went on in the city of Philadelphia.
I remember a businessman testified before the committee as to what
the business community was trying to do to diminish that situation.
I asked this gentleman, "With all respect for the sincerity of your
efforts and the good work you have done, how many recreational areas
are in the area where the gangs fight one anotlier?" He said "One."
"How many coaches, how many playground supervisors are there?"
"Just one at that particular place." I asked, "Did it ever occur to you,
gentlemen, the good results you might get if you hire some playground
supervisors and get some more playgrounds and bought some play-
ground equipment for these young boys who just do nothing and roam
around idly on the streets ?
"If you could get them involved in athletic programs or some sort
of wholesome activity, you would reduce their participation in violent
crime."
He said : "Well, maybe so, but it hadn't occurred to us that one way
to reduce crime would be to divert the energy and activity of those
boys into recreation or some sort of wholesome activity."
Mr. NoLAX. We feel, all crime prevention programs should work
at giving an individual an alternative, an alternative to participating
in non-law-type activities.
Chairman Pepper. We had hearings in Chicago and had very fine
cooperation from your great distinguished mayor and your police
officials and your TV stations. Educational TV had us on TV all
day during our hearings and summarized our program for 2 or 3
hours in the evening.
I recall you had there a very serious drug problem, also. We had
one instance of where money was given to a high school student and
that young lady went out and came back within 2 or 3 hours with
almost every kind of drug that one could use, that she had bought in
her school.
That is one of the things this committee is trying to do, frying to
get the Federal Government to help with money that can be used in
the schools, to employ drug counselors and to teach the teachers more
308
about drugs, to aid the parents in learning something more about
drugs.
Do you regard that as a serious problem in your area?
Mr. Nolan. We certainly do and I would like to speak for the
lf3,000 members of our department and certainly our superintendent
and other staff. We compliment this particular committee in working
in our behalf and all of the other cities' behalfs. Drugs are a very
serious problem in our city and I can only speak for Chicago. Any
kind of help that is given, giving youngsters alternative to let them
know, recognize as we do, that drugs are not only being misused or
have been misused by our minority citizens, but certainly by those
in the wealthy areas in the Chicago metropolitan area; those people
are suffering, also.
So it is not a problem of minorities alone. We feel that money spent
in this area by our Federal Government would certainly be returned
twofold by better citizens.
Chairman Pepper. Very good; one other question. Do you have
any serious delay in the courts of Chicago in the trial of people that
the police arrest and bring into the prosecution system?
Mr. Nolan. Yes; we do have a backlog. This is being worked at
steadily by our chief judges and other individuals of the criminal
justice system. It is something that because of the inadequacy in the
past that has been allowed to grow upon us in such a sense that some
of our serious crimes have been addressed to rather late, but fortunate-
ly there has been a move in another direction, where progress is seen,
and we now feel in the city of Chicago our courts are catching up
with the backlog of cases.
Cliairman Pepper. I see. Tliank you again, Mr. Nolan, you and your
associates, for coming here and helping us.
Mr. Nolan. We thank you for inviting us.
[The following material was received for the record :]
REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT TO THE POLICE
BOARD, DECEMBER 14, 1972
1. Personnel and training. — There were 444 Department recruits enrolled in the
39-week Academy training program on November 30, 1972. Of this number, 146
are scheduled to graduate on December 29.
In addition, 48 recruits from nineteen suburban police departments and various
county and state law enforcement agencies graduated on November 3 from a
7-week Academy training program. On November 13, 25 more recruits from eleven
suburban police departments as well as county and state law enforcement agencies
started a new 7-week training program.
Eighteen Department Policewomen recruits were enrolled in a 21-week pre-
service training program. This class is scheduled to graduate on March 23, 1973.
Other training programs conducted at the Department's Academy during
November include :
14 Sergeants completed a two-week pre-service training program for
Lieutenants.
61 Members completed a three-week pre-service training program for Sergeants.
48 Members completed a four-week pre-service training program for Investi-
gators.
63 civilian employees of the City graduated on November 10 from a 6-week
pre-service training program to qualify as Community Service Aides.
29 civilian City employees started a 6-week pre-service training program on
November 13 to qualify as Community Service Aides. This class is scheduled to
graduate on December 22.
309
306 Members participated in various firearms range activities. In addition,
376 men from five county and state law enforcement agencies took part in super-
vised range activities.
2. Awards and commendations. — Department Commendations for bravery in
action were awarded to eight Members. Honorable Mentions for outstanding
activity were awarded to 962 Members. During November a total of 201 OflScers
were complimentetl for their oflieial actions in letters received from citizens.
3. Model cities program. — There were 413 Community Service Aides on active
duty on November 30, including those currently enrolled in pre-servioe training, as
heretofore cited.
Aides filed reports during the month relating to 3,684 service requests from the
public. They also conducted 1,775 follow-up investigations relating to public
complaints about services.
Aides were instrumental in the recovery of sixteen stolen vehicles ; conducted
investigations into animal bite complaints which involved 22 persons, and in-
vestigated reports of four missing persons.
The arrests of a man involved in a drugstore robbery attempt and a second
man who was operating a stolen vehicle were made possible by alert reporting
of the incidents by Aides.
Aides also participated actively in conducting a program of field trips, educa-
tional tours and recreational outings for residents, chiefly youngsters, in the
six target areas.
4. Complaints against members. — During the 11th period, from October 12
through November 8, a total of 358 complaints were filed against members by
citizens and Department personnel.
In the same time frame, the investigation of 453 complaints was completed of
which 85, or 18.7 per cent were sustained.
It is pointed out that investigation of 38 additional complaints was terminated
or held open because citizens declined to cooperate with Department investigators.
In the 85 sustained cases 109 members were disciplined as follows:
6 received oral reprimands
20 received written reprimands
50 were suspended for from 1 to 5 days
9 were susi^ended for from 6 to 15 days
24 were suspended for from 16 to 30 days
In addition to the above, eight accused members resigned from the Department
while subjects of investigations.
5. Crime and traffic statistics. — During the 11th period, from October 12
through November 8, there were 9,267 index crimes reported. This total repre-
sents a decrease of 4.8 per cent in comparison to the same period in 1971 and a
reduction of 5.7 per cent in comparison to the previous 10th period.
On a cumulative basis, there were 102,968 serious crimes reported during the
first eleven periods in 1972, a reduction of 2.9 per cent in comparison to the same
eleven periods in 1971.
Further, on a cumulative basis, four crime categories showed decreases and
three showed increases in comparison to 1971 as follows :
Homicide, 598, down 16 per cent ; robbery, 19,418, down 0.3 per cent ; burglary,
30.869, down 3.7 per cent; auto theft, 27,742, down 6.4 per cent.
Increases occurred in the category of :
Serious assault, 9,651, up 0.8 per cent ; rape, 1,312, up 4.3 per cent ; theft ($50 &
over) , 13,378, up 0.4 per cent.
Traffic statistics for the month of November follow :
November
1972
Cumulative to date
1 ncrease
or
decrease
1971
1972 1971
Fatalities...
Personal injury accidents
Property damage accidents
28
2,170
12,239
23
1,788
9,912
261 256
25, 450 24, 093
131,738 111,617
-1-
+ 1,35
+20, 12
310
As of the end of October, Chicago ranked lowest among cities of over a million
population in the number of traffic fatalities per 10,000 registered vehicles :
Rate per 10,000 Registered Vehicles ^
Chicago 2. 5
Los Angeles 2. 8
Philadelphia 2. 8
Houston 3. 0
Detroit 3. 7
New York 4.3
TOTAL FATALITIES JAN. 1 THROUGH OCT. 31 »
Increase or
1972 1971 decrease
Chicago ---
Los Angeles
Philadelphia...
Houston
Detroit
New York
1 Source of the above comparative intercity figures is the National Safety Council.
231
233
-2
364
366
-2
157
172
-15
146
153
-7
204
186
+18
712
758
-46
General Ordeii{
Subject: Community Service Aides Project
I. PURPOSE
This order :
A. Continues in effect the Chicago Police Department's Community Service
Aides Project within the Preventive Programs Division of the Bureau of Com-
munity Services.
B. Details the functions and responsibilities of Command and Supervisory per-
sonnel with respect to the project.
0. Outlines the functions and responsibility of the Community Service Aides.
II. COMMUNITY SERVICE AIDES PROJECT
The Community Service Aides Project is the Chicago Police Department's part
in the Model Cities Program of the City of Chicago, which is operated under the
component ; Law, Order, Justice and Corrections. The Community Service Aides
Project has been designed to address two problems concurrently :
(1) reduce crime in the Model Cities neighborhoods to a level at least
comparable to non-model cities areas.
(2) improve relations between members of the community in the Target
Areas and the police who serve them.
in. RESPONSIBILITT
The Superintendent of Police will direct and administer the project. He will
direct and control the combined and coordinated efforts of the Personnel, Re-
search and Development, Training, Patrol, and Preventive Programs Divisions.
The Director of the Preventive Programs Division, under the direction of the
Deputy Superintendent, Bureau of Community Services, has been delegated the
necessary authority to see that this project conforms to the goals of the Model
Cities Program.
The Community Service Centers and their assigned personnel are placed under
the direct supervision of the Project Director, who will operate under the direc-
tion and guidance of the Deputy Superintendent of the Bureau of Community
Services, and the Director of the Preventive Programs Division. The Project
Director will assign the various jobs and missions to the Community Service
Aides, and assure the proper care, appearance, and efficiency of the service
centers.
311
IV. ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS
The Community Service Aides Project will operate from six Community Serv-
ice Centers, and be administered and controlled from a Headquarters Oflice.
A. Headquarters. — The Project Director will be assigned one sergeant as ad-
ministrative assistant and one patrolman. He will also be assigned an accountant,
a principal stenographer, a senior stenographer and two principal account clerks.
These people comprise the administrative staff and will perform all the necessary
accounting and reporting duties.
B. Community Service Centers. — The community service centers are akin to
satellite police stations, and also serve as a training center and headquarters for
the Community Service Aides. The centers will be open 12 hours a day, operating
on two eight-hour, overlapping shifts. To each center there is assigned a lieuten-
ant, several sergeants and patrolmen.
(1) Lieutenants. The lieutenant is a visible representative of police man-
agement in the target areas. He will administer the center, coordinate the
efforts of the sergeants, is responsible for the overall conduct and efficiency
of the personnel assigned.
(2) Sergeants. The sergeants will operate a station desk in each center.
The desk will be staffed at all times when the center is open and be avail-
able to members of the community to express complaints, seek protection,
make inquiries, and request not only police service, but service from other
concerned city agencies. The sergeants also act as training officers for the
Community Service Aides. In addition, the sergeants supervise the patrol-
men and are available as counselors.
(3) Patrolmen. The patrolmen will work with and supervise the Commu-
nity Service Aides in the field. He will be responsible for the output of the
Aides assigned to him, assuring that they are on their assignments, check-
ing attendance, and performing other duties of a line sui)ervisor.
v. COMMUNITY SERVICE AIDES
A. Recruitment. — The Personnel Division of the Chicago Police Department
will have responsibility for recruitment and determining the eligibility and
qualifications of applicants desiring to become Community Service Aides. Ap-
plicants will be appointed at the direction of a selection board consisting of the
Depiity Superintendent, Bureau of Community Services ; the Director of Per-
sonnel ; and the Project Director of the Community Service Aides Project.
B. Duties. — Community Service Aides will perform the following duties :
(1) Foot Patrol. Aides will be assigned as a member of a Squad, super-
vised by a Patrolman, to patrol a specific section of the Target Area on foot.
While on patrol the Aides will observe and report on siich things as : Aban-
doned Vehicles — In addition to reporting the abandoned vehicle, check the
registration against current listing of vehicles reported stolen ; abandoned re-
frigerators : abandoned buildings that constitute a hazard ; dead animals
on the public way : dangerous holes or obstructions in street, sidewalk or
curb : street or traffic signs that are missing, inoperative or obscured : lost
children ; aged or infirm persons in need of assistance ; missing persons ;
truants ; open fire hydrants ; unauthorized persons loitering around schools ;
live wires down ; other hazardous conditions.
(2) Crime Prevention. The Aides will be visibly deployed at all types of
iniblic gatherings to minimize the opportunity for citizens to be victims of
theft from person (pickpockets, pui-se snatchings).
The Aides will be utilized to pass out literature such as pamphlets and
brochures advising citizens on how they can protect themselves or mini-
mize the likelihood of their becoming a victim of the crimes of burglarly, i-ob-
bery. rape, etc.
Aides will, by their many face to face contacts with citizens during their
patrols and attendance at neighborhood meetings, be in a position to ex-
plain the role of the citizen in combating crime and delinquencv.
While on patrol in business districts be alert and call to the attention of
the proprietor conditions that may make him vulnerable to such crimes as
shoplifting, burglary, etc.
(3) Clerical Duties. Aides will be assigned as Assistant Secretaries and
Assistants to desk personnel in District Stations; assigned to assist the Re-
view Officer in District Stations; assigned during early evening hours in
95-158— 7."— pt. 1 21
312
Libraries, Schools, and Churches to assist in regulating the demeanor and
decorum of school age children in these locations ; be utilized as tour guides
in Police Stations,
(4) Police-Community Relations. Aides will be assigned to assist the
District Commander and the Neighborhood Relations Sergeant in promoting
Police-Community Relations Workshops; assist in organizing Block Clubs
and other neighborhood clubs, and assist in arranging for these clubs to meet
mth police personnel on a regular basis ; take advantage of every opportunity
to explain police procedures and practices to members of the community.
(5) Miscdlaneous. Aides will be assigned to assist the Neighborhood Re-
lations Sergeant with youth activities : patrol playgrounds and perimeter
of school grounds, reporting undesirable conditions and/or conditions that
may lead to crime ; provide special escort for children from school, such as
a child that becomes ill during school hours, and is sent home.
O. Disciplinary procedures. — Disciplinary procedures relative to complaints
and/or disciplinary actions against Connnunity Service Aides are prescril)ed
in Bureau of Community Services Special Order Number 70-6, dated 19 May 1070.
Complaints against Community Service Aides are reported to Unit Commanders
of the Community Services Aides Project, and NOT to the Internal Affairs
Division. Com|plaints against sworn members of the Community Service Aides
Project are processed in accordance with tlie provisions of General Order Num-
ber 67-21 as amended.
The Chicago Police Department Training Bulletin
the communitl' service aide project
Since February of 1970 the Chicago Police Department has sponsore<l a
"Police Community Service Aides Project" under the auspices of the federally
funded Model Cities Program. A total of 422 Community Service Aides have
since been hired by the Chicago Police Departmient to work under the guidaufe
and direction of 72 sworn members of the Department in an attempt to reduce
crime and improve the quality of urban life.
To insure a better xinderstanding of the Department's role in this innova-
tive program, a brief description of the origin and operation of the total Model
Cities Program will first be presented. This will be followed by a more detailed
account of the Community Service Aides Project and the hiring, training and
duties of the aides.
"Improving the quality of urban life is the most critical domestic problem
facing the United States" reads the opening statement of the congressional
legislation which created Model Cities. This statement, plus the recognition by
Congress that cities do not have adequate resources to deal effectively with the
serious problems confronting them, was the basis for the creation of the
Model Cities Program.
On 1 December 1967 the City of Chicago was offered a planning grant by the
Federal Government to develop programs in four Chicago communities — Lawn-
dale, Woodlawn, Uptown and Grand Boulevai'd. These commimities have a com-
bined area of about six square miles and a combined population of approximately
327.000 persons. In May of 1969, after months of study, planning, review and
revisions the Chicago Model Cities Program was submitted to the Federal Gov-
ernment for review and, hopefully, funding. On 26 June 1969 the first year plan
was approved. On 8 August 1969 Chicago received aiithority to spend $38,1.")9,-
000.00 in supplementary funds to carry out the first year action program.
Model Cities plans, funds, monitors and evaluates programs, although it does
not operate them directly. Public and private agencies having extensive exper-
ience in the target areas are contracted to administer projects which fall into
ten major categories or classifications. They are Housing ; Health ; Education :
Jjaw ; Order ; Justice and Corrections ; Child and Family Services ; Economic
Development ; Environment ; Transportation ; Leisure Time ; and Manpower.
The programs in each category were developed in response to problems that
area residents and the City agreed should be given the highest priorities.
LAW, ORDER, JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONS
Of the ten areas of concern being funded in each target area, the one most
important to the Chicago Police Department is that of Law, Order, Justice and
Corrections. This category involves four projects. The largest of these is the
313
Chicago Police Department's Comnmnity Service Aides Project, which deals
primarily with improving the quality of iirban life. The other three projects deal
with the problem of youths in the correctional system.
ORIGIN OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICE AIDES PROJECTS
In 1967 the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Admini-stration
of Justice recommended the creation of a Community Sen'ice Officer position for
police departments operating in larger urban areas. According to the Commis-
sion's Report, the Community Service Officer would work on the street in close
cooperation with police officers. lie would not have full law enforcement powers
or cari-y arms, neither would he perform only clerical duties. lie would be a uni-
formed member of the working police who performs certain service and investi-
gative duties on the street. He would maintain close contact with the juveniles
in neighborhoods where he works. He might be available in a neighborhood
store front, office or Community Service Center. He would perform the service
duties that inner city residents )ieed so urgently and that law enforcement
officers have so little time to perform. He would be an integral part of a police
team.
These suggestions offered by the President's Commission served as the basis
for the creation of the Chicago Police Department's Community Service Aide
I'roject.
GOALS OF THE PROJECT
The purposes and goals of this undertaking were set forth in the initial stages
of the months of planning that preceded the opening of the first Community Serv-
ice Center. As enumerated in the First Year's Action Program and as they remain
to the present, the purposes of the project are :
1. to prevent and reduce the incidence of criminal and anti-social behavior by
saturating the areas with foot patrol teams.
2. to improve police community relations by employing Police Community Aides
to interpret the roles of the Police Department to the community and the com-
munity to the Police Department.
3. to enhance the utilization of sworn personnel in the areas of law enforce-
ment and arrest by substitiiting civilian personnel to handle non-ai'rest functions.
4. to develop community responsibility toward combating crime.
The strategic objectives outlined for the project are to :
1. rai.se resident income by employment of more than 400 Model Area residents
as Police Community Service Aides.
2. improve housing and environment by detecting and reporting conditions
detrimental to the environment.
3. enhance community responsibility by saturating the neighborhood with foot
patrol teams of Community Service Aides to provide an immediate and accessible
source of contact with law enforcement agencies.
4. enlarge human opportunities by providing training to those who desire and
are qualified to become sworn personnel.
5. improve city capability to protect persons and property in target areas l)y
relieving the sworn personnel from non-arrest and human service activities and
allowing them to direct their efforts to crime prevention.
THE COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER
In February of 1970 the first Community Service Center was opened in the 11th
District at 294.5 AVest Harrison Street. Presently centers are open in each of the
four (4) target areas: one center each in the 2nd, 3rd. 10th, 11th and 21st dis-
tricts and one combined center in the 19th and 20th districts. The exact locations
of these centers are as follows :
2nd District— 542 East 47th Street
3rd District— 871 East 63rd Street
10th District— 1308 South Pulaski Road
11th District— 2945 West Harrison Street
20th District — 4.552 North Broadway
21st District— 1040 East 47th Street
The Chicago Police Department Community Service Aide Project Admin-
istration is headquartered at 1029 South Wabash Avenue.
314
Each of the above listed centers can be likened to a satellite Police Station,
serving also as a training center and headquarters for the Community Service
Aides. The centers are opened to the public 12 hours a day from 0800 to 2000
hours.
A lieutenant and several sergeants and patrolmen are assigned to each center.
The lieutenant, a visible representative of police management in the target
areas, administers the center, coordinates the effort of his sergeants, and is re-
sponsible for the overall conduct and efficiency of his command. The sergeants
operate a station desk in each center. Members of the community use the centers
to express complaints, seek protection, make inquiries and requests, not only for
police service but for service from other concerned city agencies. The sergeants
also are the training officers for the Community Service Aides. They primarily
direct their training efforts toward efficient job perfonnance but emphasize the
need for outside formal education. In addition the sergeants supervise the patrol-
men and are available as counselors for the aides. The patrolman is the backbone
of the operation. He works with and supervises the Community Sei-vice Aides in
the field. He is responsible for the output of the Community Service Aides as-
signed to him, assures that they are on their assignments, checks attendance and
performs the other duties of a line supervisor.
HIRING, TRAINING AND DUTIES OF AIDES
At about the same time Model Cities Police personnel were iindergoing three
weeks of training for the Community Service Aide Project, advertisements an-
nouncing the hiring of Community Sei*vice Aides w-ere being placed in local
newspapers and at the neighborhood State Employment offices. Qualifications for
the position were prepared by the Chicago Police Department Personnel Division.
They are:
1. Males must be age 17 or over ; females age 18 or over.
2. No height requirement but weight must be proportionate to height.
3. Passing of a minimum physical examination.
4. Taking a written examination. The exam serves to determine the edu-
icational level of the applicants but is not a criterion for employment. This
is most essential for designing the training program and in counseling the
Community Service Aides as to their educational needs.
y. United States citizenship.
6. If any military service, a discharge paper and a medical history are
required.
7. Acceptable character background and driving record.
8. Model Cities target area residence, (MANDATORY).
The salary for the aides is $445.00 per month to start, $467.00 per month after
3 months, $491.00 after 6 months, $515.00 after 9 months and $540.00 per month
after one year. This salary does not include the Community Service Aides uni-
f6rm allowance of $100.00 the first year. Hospitalization insurance is paid for
by the city.
Prior to assignment to field duties each aid is given approximately 4.55 hours
of instruction by the center staff. These courses range from criminal law to
physical education and from social sciences to Police Department policies. In
addition to this classroom training, after four months of employment each Com-
munity Service Aide is counseled about his educational background in an attempt
to encourage the Community Service Aides to continue schooling. Basic and
advanced G.E.D. courses have been established in each center for those aides
who do not have high school diplomas. For those w^ho qualify for college, tuition
is free and the student is reimbursed for books. In addition the aides are allowed
9' hours a week away from normal duties to attend these classes.
The team patrol is the basic work unit in the Community Service Aide Project.
This patrol team consists of one patrolman and seven to twelve Community Serv-
ice Aides. It is hoped that these team patrols will serve as a crime deterrent
by their mere presence in the community.
The Community Service Aides investigate abandoned autos, report sanita-
tion violations, watch for pollution violations and refer building and zoning
violations to the proper agencies. Since the aides perform other miscellaneous
services that are usually performed by the police, the beat officer is freed from
time-consuming service type calls and can concentrate on crime prevention.
Community Service Aides also provide clerical help in the district station and
in the Community Service Center. Aides have formed block clubs in the com-
munity and floor clubs for some of the projects ; they have assisted police per-
315
ponnel at elementary, upper grade centers and high schools ; helped locate miss-
ing children ; obtained Red Cross assistance for families displaced by fires ; dis-
tributed food to the hungry and have organized and advertised Police Community
Relation Workshops.
In addition to the above duties, several Community Service Centers have in-
stituted the following special projects :
1. Community Service Centers have prepared tables of crime statistics, by
beat, time of day and type of crime, and aid heretofore unavailable at the dis-
trict level on a day-to-day basis. These tables are used to prepare team patrol
assignments.
2. Aides have been assigned to work with the courts in an effort designed to
reduce the number of repeater "drunk and disorderly" cases coming before that
court. Familiar with the full range of city services, the aides are able to make
referrals to the proper agency offering opportunities for rehabilitation.
3. During the summer of 1970, Aides of a Community Service Center chaperoned
approximately 120 youngsters on four camping trips to Camp Malibu in Illinois.
Several of the center's aides had worked long hours preparing the necessary pro-
posals which had to be presented to the Department of Human Resoi;rces Leisure
Time Committee. The preparation and presentation of the Camp Malibu proposal
to this committee was necessary to obtain the funding for the trip. After funding
was approved, neighborhood groups were contacted to provide names of deserving
youngsters for the trips. These outings proved very successful, and it is hoped
that funding can be allocated for similar trips in the future.
4. Aides from another Community Service Center held "splash parties'' ou
numerous blocks in the target area. This assignment involved having a team
of aides turn on fire hydrants equipped with sprinkler attachments for several
hours each day. The streets were blocked off at either end and the owners of auto-
mobiles in close proximity to the hydrants were notified of the splash party.
The aides remained at the hydrant to supervise the children's activity. This
assignment was intended to decrease the number of hydrants being opened
by unauthorized persons and then left to hamper traffic, overload sewers, and
cause a police officer to leave more important duties and turn the hydrant off
to the dismay of the neighborhood's yoimgsters. The 10th District program
has alleviated these problems to some extent.
o. Several of the aides were enrolled in a 10 week course on Consumer Fraud.
The valuable lessons learned by the aides will then be presented to the general
public at Community Workshops meetings organized by the Community
Service Aides.
6. Acting pursuant to an indicated need in one of the target areas, sworn per-
sonnel and their aides have initiated a tutoring program for youngsters from
7 to 14 years of age. Thus far, approximately 150 students have enrolled in the
program which is designed to improve reading and writing skills. Aside from
removing any fears of the police the children have prior to enrolling, the program
hopes to decrease the number of slow-learning school age persons who con-
ceivably may drop out when they reach the high school level.
There are however some duties the Community Service Aides are not permitted
to perform. The Community Service Aides do not :
1. make arrests.
2. work in detention facilities.
3. take case reports on crimes.
4. drive Department vehicles.
5- work in building maintenance.
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
The Police Department Model Cities budget provided for two sedans and 12
station wagons to assist the police personnel in carrying out their duties. The
station wagons are used to transport the Community Service Aides to their vari-
ous assignments and are used by the team patrol officer as a means to widen his
span of control.
Preventive Programs Division Community Service Aides Project
To: Ms. Junerous M. Cook, Director of Evaluation and Urban Studies, Model
Cities/CCUO. 640 North La Salle Street, Chicago, 111.
From : Captain John T. Kelly, Project Director. Community Service Aides Proj-
ect, 1020 South Wabash Avenue, Room 201, Chicago, 111.
316
Subject: Project Evaluation — In compliance with contractual requirements,
attached hereto is the Project Evaluation of Year Two, encompassing the
dates of 1 June 1971 to 1 September 1972.
John T. Kelley,
Project Director, Community Service Aides Project.
Approved : Samuel W. Nolan, Deputy Superintendent, Bureau of Community-
Services.
Project Evaluation
1. program description
The Community Sen-ice Aides Project was initiated to accomplish the task of :
A. reducing the incidence of crime in the designated Model Cities Target Areas.
B. improving police-community relations.
C improving the quality of life in these areas, and
D. allowing the police patrol force in the neighborhood to spend more time
on crime prevention.
The Administrative Headquarters for the Project is located at 1020 South
Wabash Avenue. The administrative staff consists of: 1 captain, 1 sergeant, 1
i:)atrolman, 5 civilian iwrsonnel.
Six Community Service Centers are established and operating at the following
locations :
1327 East 6.3rd Street (Mid South Woodlawn) .
542 East 47th Street (Near South Grand Boulevard).
1038 East 47th Street (Near South Grand Boulevard).
3150 AVest Ogden Avenue (West North Lawndale).
2945 West Harrison (West North Lawndale).
4552 North Broadway (I'ptown),.
The Mid South Center was moved into the new location because of a fire at
their prior location at 871 East 63rd Street. West North Lawndale Center facility
was moved to its present location at 3150 West Ogden Avenue from 1309 South
Pulaski because the building on Pulaski Road was sold.
The Community Service Centers are staffed by the following police personnel :
6 lieutenants, 22 sergeants, 40 patrolmen.
All sworn Chicago Police Department personnel assigned to the project are
volunteers with a minimum of 4 years experience and an overall average of
15 years with the Police Department. All personnel, with the exception of the
Director of the Preventive Programs Division, devote 100% of their time to
the Project.
The Community Service Aides Project was designed to produce employment
for 422 residents of the target area communities. The average monthly employ-
ment of aides during Year Two was 355.
The Community Service Aides receive approximately 250 hours of In-Service
Training yearly conducted by sworn police personnel assigned to the center
from the Criminal Investigation Division, etc. In addition, they receive counsel-
ling from professionals with emphasis placed on education who are assigned
to the center.
The project coordinated its activities with many public and private agencies.
In resolving most non-police x'elated complaints and requests for service the
project dealt closely with the Mayor's Office of Inquiry and Information.
The Illinois State Employment Service provided valuable services in the re-
cruitment and testing of aide applicants. The Public Service Institute and the
Civil Service Commission provided professional services in the aide education
program. The project headquarters maintained continuous liaison with a host
of puVdic agencies. Project personnel have established rapport with numerous
community and church sponsored organizations which operate in the areas
serviced by the Community Service Centers.
II. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND METHODS FOR ACCOMPLISHMENT
A. Enable police to increase preventive patrolling and enforcement activities. —
The Community Service Aides accomplished this objective by locating 8.23S
abandoned autos, submitting reports on 2.790 abandoned buildings, and reporting
and following up street and sanitation conditions : thereby releasing the beat
patrol officer from acting upon such conditions so that he could concentrate on
effective preventive patrol and enforcement.
317
B. Provide the community loith increased access to Police Services. — The
presence of the six centers in the coniuuinity enabled residents to maintain a
closer and more personal relationship with the Police Department. To cite an
example — arrest at 550-011 on 27 March 1972 wherein six Community Aides
observed a strong arm robbery in progress involving three offenders and one
victim. The aides ran to aid the victim. Two of the offenders were chased and
caught by the aides who effected the arrest witli the assistance of an 11th Dis-
trict Tactical Team. Many residents find it much easier to relate to i>ersons who
are members of their community. Most aides know or have formed ac(iuaiutances
with the residents, thus the problems of the residents were more readily under-
stood by the aides. Coordinating the efforts of the aides with those of the Neigh-
Iiorhood Relations Sergeant gave the residents greater access to services of the
I'olice Department.
C. Improve cooperation between the commnnitij and the police. — Community
Aides were able to encourage the residents to attend Police-Community Work-
shops and other related meetings. Through personal encounter and literature
prepared at the centers and Police Headquarters, the aides made residents
more aware of the police role in the community. This was evidenced by the in-
creased attendance and participation in a number of community projects.
D. Employment of local residents as Community Service Aides. — The Com-
munity Sei'^'ice Aides Project produced and continues employment for residents
of the target area communities thereby raising resident income and funnelling
salaries into communities for people who would otherwise be unemployed.
E. Improving housing and environment. — The Community Aide as part of his
daily activity communicated with residents and landlords. He was instrumental
in forming block clubs and encouraged landlords to maintain their properties.
We have found that after a l>lock club is formed by a Community Aide that if
we do not remain active within the club they cease to operate. He constantly
observed, reported and followed up on the condition of streets, alleys, lighting,
and attractive nui.sances that presented a deteriorating affect on the community.
F. Provide training for .'i2i Model Cities Target Area residents. — Place em-
phasis on potential careers with the Police Department and other public and
private agencies.
Fifty-nine (59) Commiuiity Aides completed requirements for GED certifica-
tion. Most of these aides continued their education through enrollment in college
l)rograms. Presently there are 120 aides enrolled in college level prgrams. Aides
have been urged to take examinations for Civil Service positions. Classes wei'e
held at all centers for aides and residents of the community for the Police-
woman. Senior Public Safety Aide, and Patrolman examinations. Four (4)
Community Service Aides passed the Patrolman examination. Eleven (11) Com-
munity Service Aides passed the written portion of the Policewoman's examina-
tion and out of the 340 persons passing the Public Safety Aide examination, 276
were Community Service Aides. The fact that the first 123 persons on the list
were Community Service Aides is a good indication of the value of training the
aides received in this program. Numerous Community Service Aides have gone
into career fields of employment, such as police ofiicers, airline stewardesses,
ilerchant Marines, and self emi)loyment.
Iir. COIIMUXITY SERVICE AIDES PROGRAMS CRIME RELATED
In its objective to reduce the incidence of crime in the Model Cities Target
Areas, the Community Service Aides Project pursued the following programs :
A. Protect life and property in the Model Cities Neighhorhood. — The Com-
munity Service Aides have been instrumental in the arrest of criminal offenders.
Numerous examples of their diligent performances at fires and in administer-
ing first aid have been cited. See exhibit 1.
P.. Located and caused to he recovered .stolen vehicles. — Intensified ti'aining and
execution of a program to detect and report stolen autos has been initiated.
Training Bulletins, vehicle identification hand cards, and roll call visits by auto
theft investigators were included. Training was on a professional level and in-
cluded discussions on alley garage auto stripping operations, popped ignitions
and slampullers.
Project records indicate that community service aides recovered 21G reported
stolen vehicles from 1 January to 1 September 1972. Total reported stolen vehi-
cles recovered from 1 January through 31 December 1971 numbered S7.
C. Located ahandoned vehicles and caused their removal. — Comnnmity Service
Aides located and reported all abandoned vehicles observed in their patrol areas.
318
This information was forwarded to the District Abandoned Auto OflScer who has
the responsibility to have the vehicle removed. Aides further followed these re-
ports up to determine if or when action was taken. When the veliicle was re-
moved, they closed our suspense file. Abandoned cars present a problem to dis-
trict commanders. The action taken by CSAs in having abandoned cars remov^ed
saves the commander from using a number of sworn personnel in eliminating this
problem.
D. The centers assign aides daily to regular foot patrol beats in the target
areas. — Two or more aides under the supervision of a sworn supervisor comprise
a patrol team. Seventy-seven (77) foot patrol beats are manned daily.
IV. C'OMMUNITT SEEVICE AIDES PROGKAMS — POLICE SERVICE RELATED
To enable the police to spend more time on crime prevention the Community
Service Aides undertook the following :
A. Conducted folloic-iip investigations of missing person cases. — Community
Aides followed up on 13S missing persons investigations from 1 June 1971 through
1 September 1972. Community Service Special Order 71-1 and Youth Division
Special Order 71-12 were issued on 22 March 1971, implementing the Adult
Missing Person Investigations Procedures. Effective 1 April 1971 the Com-
munity Service Aides were authorized to conduct investigations of missing
persons. These investigations were previously conducted by youth officers who
now with the implementation of the aides are afforded more time with youth
related incidents.
B. Conduct a Bicycle Registration Program. — District centers established a
Bicycle Registration Program. They obtained the cooperation of private and
public agencies to encourage and urge youths of the community to register their
bicycles. All Community Service Aides while (m patrol carry and have available
at all times a supply of bicycle registration cards. The aides also distributed the
little red booklet, "10 Little Bike Rides" which covers the rules and regulations
of bicycle riding.
C. Conducted a canvass to update emergency listings for businesses. — The
Community Service Aides continued to canvass the target areas of businesses in
the area to update the businesses listings and made note of complaints and/or
suggestions the businessmen voiced. The centers maintained and furnished to
the district stations a current file of addresses and phone numbers where mer-
chants could be reached during emergencies, thus reducing police details at these
locations. This service was formerly a police function. Current card files are used
by district police to notify owners of fires in buildings, crimes, etc. Prompt
response by property owners, release the assignment of beat cars stationed at the
location, making them available for patrol duty.
v. COMMUNITY SERVICE AIDES PROGRAMS — NON-ENFORCEMENT
Board of Health
Sickle Cell Anemia, and. Lead Testing Programs
The Community Service Aides performed an excellent job in connection with
this program. Tlie program was operated in schools in the Grand Boulevard Tar-
get Area with the cooperation of the Board of Education and the Board of Health.
Tests were conducted from January to May 30, 1972 in nine schools, and at Com-
munity Service Aide Centers where 3,479 children were tested, and 282 were
found to be positive. See exhibit 2. Tests were also conducted on street corners
in the Uptown Target Area using mobile units. Since May 1972, a total of 15
separate locations were used. A total of 748 children were tested, 647 for lead
poisoning and 137 for Sickle Cell Anemia. See exhibit 3.
In connection with the testing program, it was necessary to secure the con-
sent of the parents who were required to sign consent forms. Aides did this work
by visiting the children's homes in advance of the testing. When the children
did not appear at the mobile unit for a test the aides went to their homes and;
with the consent of the parents escorted the children to and from the mobile unit.
We are again attempting to secure the mobile unit service citywide for 1973.
319
Raines Control Program
Conducted initial and follow up surveys of animal owners to educate and en-
courage compliance with lawful requirements for licensing dogs and admin-
istering rabies inoculations. Community Aides have followed up on 557 dog bite
investigations from 1 June 1971 through 1 September 1972.
Bi partmeyit of Water and, Setvers
Educational programs and supervision regarding the city wide use of open fire
hydrant sprinkling was engaged in by Community Service Aides in coor)eration
with the Department of Water and Sewers' Summertime Control Program. See
exhibit 5.
Department of Streets And Sanitation — ^Department of Buildings. The aides
have reported 30,543 irregularities or service requests between 1 June 1971 and
1 September 1972, which were registered by the residents or observed by the aides.
Tliese service requests/irregularity reports include abandoned autos, abandoned
buildings, holes in streets, uncollected garbage, rodent control, exix)sed wire,
heating complaints, and etc. The performance of the aide in this phase of his
.activity relieves police personnel to answer many more calls of a criminal nature.
See exhibit 2.
OOOPEEATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
Aides were deployed to schools where harassment of children was a problem ;
to the Mayor's Reach Out Program as coaches and supervisors; to the milk
center for distribution of milk; to neighborhood relations sergeants in district
stations for their community related programs; to the Youth Foundation, the
American Indian Center, and the Uptown Youth Correction Center as counselors.
Exhibit No. 1
(1) Community Aides Algernun Ballard, Willa Mae Emory, Dorothy Hunter,
Marva Jaker, Willow Dean Jane and Charles Byrdo, while in the performance of
routine patrol duty observed a strong arm robbery in progress involving three
offenders and one victim. The Aides ran to the assistance of the victim. Two of
the offenders were chased and caught by the Aides and were arrested by an 11th
District Tactical Unit that was nearby. The 3rd offender escaped but was sub-
sequently apprehended and identified.
(2) On 7 June 1972, Community Service Aides Ramsey and Hendrick observed
some youths in what they thought to be a stolen vehicle. After ascertaining the
validity of the steal, they called for a Patrol Car. The Aides were able to furnish
the responding Beat car, not only with a description, but the names and addresses
of the offenders. The oflScers were able to effect an immediate arrest.
(3) On 28 April, 1972, several Aides and a sworn member were in the Area of
811 — 15 East 43rd Street, where they observed a fire. The Aides went into the
burning building and notified residents of the fire. They came upon a 78 year
old woman suffering with crippling arthritis. They removed her and transported
her to Michael Reese Hospital. Aides aided in relocation of families.
On 28 April 1972 at 1830 hours a 3-11 alarm fire occured at 4402 Greenwood.
Several aides were dispatched to the scene and assisted in removing children and
adults from the burning building. Further Aides aided in relocation of families.
(4) On 29 June 1972, Community Service Aide Ford while engaged in patrol
duties, observed a man lying on the street suffering from multiple stab wounds
of the face and head. Community Service Aide Ford administered first aid to the
victim until the arrival of the police and was able to supply the police with the
name of the offender.
(5) An imidentifled woman ran into the 502 Center and related that a man
had another man down across the street robbing him. Sgt. Hawkin and Lt.
Brown immediately ran to the aid of the victim and arrested the offender. The
offender in turn had passed the gun to a passing friend, this was detected and
Officer Bratton arrested this offender, robbery case pending in court.
320
SERVICE REQUEST IRREGULARITY REPORTS
Center number
Year
to date
502
503
510
511
520
521
Total
Abandoned auto
Broken water main
93
103
139
93
159
38
625
8,238
108
Dangerous and obstructed
sidewalk
Broken curb stone
23
33
105
9
14
60
4
4
32
27
5
244
4
18
138
197
8
12
2,011
287
Broken parking meters
Hole— street/alley
Hydrant cap missing.
2
18
10
4 ....
25
16
3 ....
1 ....
"'"46""'"
117
.......
14
8
7
13
""ii".
335
978
1,042
Fallen street signs_-_
276
Dead fallen tree .
190
Street light out
140
Traffic ligtit out..
3
62
14
12
4
1
186
11
12
4
41
11
1
1
74
2
13
"'l'
-"29
6
36
3
65
45
11
30
206
3
109
20
48
5
27
1
112
21
3
8
165
5
1
9
9
"""20"
9
17
3
2
19
2 ....
32 ....
120
13
29
5
19
8
6
19
29
7
17
24
""205"
10
37
32
21
1
15
53
183
32
249
124
18
257
770
33
251
67
115
9
126
138
Street cleaning
744
Dead stray animal...
Abandoned building
282
2, 790
Dangerous building
Fire hazard
Uncollected garbage.
893
64
2,247
Bulk trash
5,214
Exposed wires
262
No lids, garbage cans
Rodent control
62
1 ....
11
32
1,474
433
Other health hazard
564
General assistance.
Attractive nuisance.. . . ..
466
228
No heat
581
Refuse vacant lot. . . .
3 ....
3
6
579
Subtotal
537
391
1,013
512
496
590
3,539
30, 543
Follow-up complaints.
278
522
330
178
261
118
1,687
7,294
Total...
815
913
1,343
690
757
708
5,226
37, 837
OPERATION HEALTHY CHILD-1972
Date
Site
Lead
Sickle
Total
May 24, 1972
May 26, 1972
.... 1200 West Winona
.... 1200 West Winnem
.... 1000 West Winona
.... 1000 West Ainslie.
Leiand and Hazel.
.... 1000 West Leiand.
.... 1200 West Leiand.
.... 1400 West Leiand.
Sunnyside and Bea
Sunnyside and Rac
Sunnyside and Haz
Cullom and Hazel.
Buena Park
do
Cuyler and Broadvi
ac .
45
32
43
50
55
28
38
28 ..
30
80 .
66
25 .
37
39
51
9
10
32
8
4
12
3
" "'§"
......
"""22'
9
12
54
42
May 31, 1972.
75
June 2, 1972...
June 7, 1972
58
59
June9,1972.
June 14, 1972
June 16, 1972
June 21, 1972
con.
40
41
28
39
June 23, 1972
ine
80
June 28, 1972
June 30. 1972. .
el
73
25
Julys, 1972
July 7, 1972
July 12,1972
fay..
59
48
6i
Total
647
137
784
The following is a breakdown report of the people tested in the 2nd District
Center and in School District #23 :
321
(/3
•— o »
= ? =
o ^
O
COT^ DO
5 "
to *-
-o o
o3
TO O)
-C CL
: 5 o
00
J — * O O O^
O r^ r-. c o
CT> Ln in »— I
U3
- tCOOtDCsJ
B ! :^ TO ^ "^
on •*- O I- o _
m v> *-- C
^ <DT3 OJ^
cot; ^"S^*-
S 0, S «'^ ^
"O > e j^ cj ._
(o 00 ® t« -i^ ^
»•— o -^ ,»_ i*_ ^
o CL 5 o o g
^ ^. u. ^ ^ (_j
<l> QJ QJ a) QJ
J3.Q JDXJ JD-=
E E E E E 2
3 3 3 =3 :3 o
c: c c c = '^
eo TO ro re 03 ^ -25
O "o O O O "D
322
The following is a total of people tested from the 2nd District Center and in
School District #23: Total number of students tested 3,497. Total number posi-
tive to test 282. ,Total number who received oltrophoresis 150. Total number of
S.C. Traits 70, and total number of S.C. disease 5. Total number of Educational
Counseling, film strip, inservice, classroom and etc. : Faculty 212, children 800,
Parents 102 and Auxiliary Staff 54.
ANIMAL CONTROL PROGRAM
The following procedures are designed to reduce the number of man-hours
presently being spent by beat personnel in handling animal bite cases. The Com-
munity Service Aides concentrate their activities in five basic areas of involve-
ment in the Model Cities Target Areas :
A. An educational program has been developed designed to acquaint citizens
with their lawful responsibilities with respect to ownership of animals. A brochure
explaining the various laws regarding animals has been prepared. This brochure
is distributed to all animal owners along with a dog license application for their
assistance in licensing their animals. Aides that encounter owners of unlicensed
dogs make prompt notification so that a summons may be issued. Movies depicting
the citizens role in a rabies control program are shown at workshops and vari-
ous meetings in the neighborhoods to acquaint the citizens with the importance
of rabies control program.
B. In the event a person has been bitten by an animal and the Animal Care
Section, or the beat officer, knows the name of the owner but has not been able
to contact him. Aides are assigned to personally contact the owner. The Aide
presents the owner with a Notice to Animal Owner form (CPD-11.1S6) which lists
instructions and requirements.
C. In the case of a person bitten by an animal and the ownership of the animal
has been established, but only verbal contact via telephone has been accomplished,
Aides are assigned to follow-up the verbal instructions by contacting the owner
with written instructions.
D. In the case of a person bitten by an animal and the animal has not been
located or impounded. Aides are assigned to the general vicinity of the incident
for the purpose of locating the animal. If the animal is located, the Aides do not
attempt to catch the animal, but will keep it under surveillance and notify the
Animal Care Section or beat vehicle.
E. All Community Service Aides, while on routine patrol, are alert for stray
dogs roaming the streets, particularly in the vicinity of schools and parks. These
animals are reported to the Animal Care Section via telephone.
OPEN FIRE HYDRANTS
In an effort to assist the Police Department in combating the problem of un-
authorized open fire hydrants, the following procedures have been implemented
by the Community Sei-vice Aides Project :
A. Each Community Service Center has been supplied with ten (10) sprinkler
caps and wreiiches for affixing the caps to fire hydrants.
B. On those days when the temperature is exceptionally high, Unit Com-
manders will inspect, or cause to be inspected, their entire Target Area on a peri-
odic basis.
C. If this inspection reveals a fire hydrant that has been opened and children
are playing in tlie water, a spray cap will be attached to this hydrant, and two
Community Service Aides left in attendance.
D. If this inspection reveals a fire hydrant that has been opened and children
are NOT playing in the water, the hydrant will be turned off.
E. In all instances where a spray cap has been attached, the spray cap will be
taken off not later than the conclusion of the second watch (2000 hours) on the
day that the spray cap was attache<l. At the conclusion of the second watch of
each day, each Community Service Center should have ten (10) .spray caps in
the Center.
F. In all cases where a spi-ay cap is attached, great care and consideration
should be given to vehicular traflSc. Spray caps should not be attached where
there is danger of vehicular accidents being caused or danger of a child being
struck by a vehicle.
The foregoing procedures have been issued as guidelines governing the Project's
initial plan of operation in this problem area. These procedures will be adjusted
as experience dictates.
323
Cliairmaii Pepper. The committee will recess until 2 o'clock this af-
ternoon when, in this room, we hear further witnesses.
I believe Chief Wilson of the District of Columbia Police Depart-
ment will be the first witness.
Without objection, we will at this time receive for the record a state-
ment from Hon. Tom Railsback of Illinois.
[Whereupon, at 12 :25 p.m. the hearing was recessed until 2 p.m. this
day.]
Peepaeed Statement by Hon. Tom Railsback, a U.S. Representatpve From
THE State of Illinois
Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members of the Committee, I commend you for
holding hearings "Crime in tlae Streets", and thank you for providing me with
the opportunity to discuss an aspect of crime which particularly concerns me^
the involvement of so many of our young people.
If we are to substantially reduce the overall crime rate in our country, we
must tirst solve the youth crime problem. We must distinguish the factors which
could turn a young person to crime, and — before he actually commits his tirst
criminal act — we must direct his energies toward a constructive life. For the
individual who has already nm afoul of the law, we must successfully rehaliUtate
him. I emphasize rehabilitate. As a result of touring numerous institutions as a
member of the Judiciary subcommittee on prison reform, I am convinced we
cannot simply put young people into institutions and assume that by some
miracle they will become well-adjusted, law-abiding citizens at the end of their
term.
Let me break down the problem of juvenile crime as I see it.
First, There has been a rapid rise in juvenile delinquency and crime. From
1960 to 1970, the juvenile arrest rate of individuals under 18 increased almost
seven times faster than the total adult arrest rate. Just as startling is the fact
that during this same period, arrests of persons under IS for violent crime in-
creased about three times as fast as the arrest rates for those over 18. And, even
though drug arrests skyrocketed for all age groups in the 1960s, the increase
exceeded 3,000% for juveniles under 18 years of age.
In 1971, nationally, persons under 15 accounted for 10% of the total police ar-
rests ; those under 18 accounted for 26% ; those under 21, 40% ; and those under
age 25 were responsible for 54% of all police arrests.
Second, Over half of the serious crimes in the United States are committed by
young people. In 1970, 63% of all serious crimes were committed by persons under
age 21. And, in both 1970 and 1971, at least 50% of the arrests for such crimes
were of persons under the age of 18.
Third, Youthful offenders have the highest recidivism rates. An FBI study
conducted in 1905-1969 showed that of the offenders under 20 who were released
in 1965, almost three-fourths of them were re-arrested by the end of the study.
In 1971, over half of the offenders under 20 years of age who were arrested
were repeat offenders. And the repeat offenders under 20 were rearrested more
frequently than any other age group.
It is clear that young people account for a disproportionate amount of all
crimes^ — even serious crimes — and the younger the age at the time of the first
arrest, the higher the recidivism rate. Further, and certainly as disturbing, when
young people are rearrested it is more likely than not for an increasingly serious
offense. Whatever we have done in the past to prevent delinquency and to re-
habilitate juvenile offenders has just not worked !
In large part, I am convinced our failure can be attributed to insufficient train-
ing of tliose who work most closely with young people — lack of any real in-depth
research in the area of juvenile crime and delinquency — and little coordination
and communication by the various agencies dealing with juvenile justice. It
is for these reasons I have introduced legislation which would set up an inde-
pendent Institute to provide training, conduct research, and disseminate infor-
mation. The research function was developed after a great deal of assistance
from the Chairman of this Committee. The bill, H.R. 45, was passed by the
House last year, and I am optimistic it will be enacted in the 98rd Congress.
We must initiate programs that are designed to cut down our crime rate
by stamping out juvenile crime. For the sake of our youth and America's future,
I encourage you to continue your deliberations and present some alternatives
324
for veclucing juvenile crime ad delinquency to the full House membership at
the earliest possible date.
Thank you,
Afternoox Session
Chairman Pepper, Tlie committee will come to order, please.
Chief, I am sorry we are a little late. The other members are on
the floor and there are several committee meetings aoing on, one of
which is a meeting of the Rules Committee of which I am a member.
We have an important bill on the floor, so I might be called any time
to leave. We don't want to take any more of your time and, of course,
your testimony will be recorded for the information of the other mem-
bers of this conmiittee.
We thank you very much for coming this afternoon.
As you know, what we are doing is bringing here for presentation
to the Congress and to the country the most innovative, imaginative,
and ert'ective programs that we can find anywhere in the country in
the police area in respect to the reduction of the occurrence of crime,
particularly violent crime.
We already have had a numl>er of outstanding programs presented
to the committee of new techniques, new manners of police methods
which have reduced crimes in various cities of the country.
We are very pleased to have you here to tell what you have been
able to do to bring about a significant reduction of violent crime in
the District of Columbia, We would appreciate it ver}' much if you
would give us that story.
STATEMENT OF JERRY V. WILSON, CHIEF, METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C., ACCOMPANIED BY GEOFFREY
M. ALPRIN, GENERAL COUNSEL
^Ir, WiLSOX. Thank you, ISLv. Chairman.
It is a real pleasure to be here and I can certainly be here at the con-
venience of you and your committee, so don't be concerned if you need
to lea^'e.
As I think you perhaps know from 3'our past interest, crime in the
District of Columbia increased almost continuously from 1957 through
1969. This increase was attributed to a variety of causes : Economic and
social ills of society, and processes of urbanization, the erosion of police
authority through court decisions, the increased complexity of crimi-
nal trials, the backlogs which resulted in the courts and eventually, in
tlie late 1960's, the increased use of hard narcotics. Crime in the Dis-
trict in terms of crime index offenses doubled from 1962 to 1966, and
doubled again from 1966 to 1969.
In 1969, at the peak, there were 60,000 crime index offenses as com-
pared with 15,000 in 1962. As I think you also know, in 1969 the Fed-
eral Government, the Nixon administration, established a priority of
reducing crime in the District of Columbia and indeed it was a cam-
paign issue; and one of the first issues addressed in the District of
Columbia was the establishment of the reduction of crime in the city
as a primary, first priority of the government.
And. of course, this was done in the face of recognized competing
priorities and problems of housing and transportation and health care
325
and sanitation, and a ^•al•iety of otlicr items that face most of the urban
aieas of America.
But President Nixon unequivocably established the reduction of
crime as the priority of the District government. This was approached
in several ways in late 19G9. It was a major increase in tlio police force
to 5,100 men and about a thousand civilians, which made it, of course,
the largest per capita police agency in America.
This, I would interject, had a side benefit in that the great increase
in the police force improved our black recruiting and it allowed us also
to use women in additional ways in the police force so that over a
])eriod of the next couple of years we were able to soften the image of
the police force as an occupation force of the city.
A second program was in the U.S. Attorney's Office, which was in-
creased in size, the prosecutor's staff was increased by 50 percent, and
the clerical assistance to the prosecutor's staff was doubled. There was
a coordinated effort instituted between the police department and the
U.S. Attorney to give special attention to offenders committing major
crimes. And major in the sense, meaning robberies and major
burglaries.
There also has been increased emphasis in both the police depart-
ment and the prosecutor's office of computerization of data in order to
make it available to police on the street and in order to make it possible
for the prosecutor to assign priorities in criminal cases in scheduling.
There was instituted in 1970 a major narcotics treatment program
cmploj-ing primarily methadone maintenance, and also some absti-
nence programs built in.
There were several changes in narcotics enforcement by the police.
We trained our street patrolmen, our uniformed officers, in the 3-day
Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs course to deal with the
street peddler. We increased the size of the headquarters narcotics
unit by quadrupling it and shifting its emphasis to major violators
and the conseqrience of this was narcotics arrests were increased from
1,000 in 1968 to 6.000 in 1971.
I would add that there has been a decline in 1972. primarily because
the narcotics simply are not on tlie street for supply and arrest any
longer. There was. of course, administrative priorities to the changes
in law wliicli particularly effected results in the reorganization and
expansion of the court svstem which was enacted by the Congress in
1970.
The last of the measurable major city programs was a major street
lighting program. I would add one measurably major ingredient, these
ouglit to be done primarily by the government, but a major ingredient
of our success in reducing crime in Washington as well, has been real
support for law enforcement, which has been, I think, seen both in
the community and in government leaders since 1969. It has just been
a long time since we have heard aiiv substantial comnuinitv leader
aver that he did not sup})ort the police and support law enforcement
or (lid not want the police in this community.
The consequence of these major programs has been a great deal of
success in reducing crime. Crime has been downward in just about
every month since November 1969. We had a couple of seasonal up-
turns but we have been succesful in reducing the crime index rate
from a peak of 202 crime index offenses daily in November 1969 to an
326
average of 89 per day for tlie last quarter, for the quarter ending last
month.
Indeed, for March we had only 85 crime index offenses per day on
the average, which was the lowest mark since 1966.
There have been some other programs within the department that I
think may be of interest. They are not as broad as those I have dis-
cussed earlier, but there are programs such as the use of scooters to give
mobility to foot patrolmen, a program which was begiui in the middle
1960's under an LEAA grant, and has been since expanded to 360
scooters. It gives us the ability of essentially having an officer on a
sort of foot patrol but with much more mobility, giving him more effec-
tiveness than the ordinary footman.
We have instituted the neighborhood scout car program, which is
aimed at trying to keep the scout car officer assigned continuously to
the same area and getting him acquainted with the residents and the
businessmen in the neighborhoods.
We have instituted a program of requiring officers to report their
business checks, requiring them to go into businesses and talk w^ith
business owners, simply to insure that they get acquainted with busi-
nessmen and the police presence is reemphasized.
We have had some success with the auto interceptor units working
on tlie problem of stolen automobiles and also with a special burglary
alarm system which we use on a tactical basis in business places in
order to cope with holdups.
The helicopter program which is used in many cities, of course, was
instituted under an LEAA grant and showed significant success. AVe
had a lot of success, Mr. Chairman, with tactical units, both mobile
uniformed patrol officers operating tactically and also with casual
clothes personnel working in tactical units, although we are presently
experimenting with phasing those out with an emphasis on getting
them back into uniformed street patrol on assigned foot beats, which
I think is something that we will be successful in.
Tactical units have been used oft' and on in the United States since
the middle 1950's and used here off and on since 1966. They were very
successful but I think many programs tend to become a part of the
bureaucracy and I presently see it as advantageous to move back to-
ward more uniformed j^atrohnen assigned to beats permanently so
they will know the residents.
Three other programs that I think may be of interest to you are in
terms of trying to appreliend criminals and make cases which will
stand up in court, which is one of the great problems, I think, in many
of the urban areas, at least the problem of apprehending criminals,
closing cases, and presenting cases to court which are prosecutable.
Tliere is a great loss between the arrest and the cases which even-
tually get to court and result in a conviction.
We have done three things in this area : One is the use of crime scene
search officers. In 1968 we had 12 men assigned to fingerprinting, and
searching, and evidence gathering at crime scenes. The consequence
of that was we had great backlogs of persons who were burgalized
or had other crimes committed who were unable to use the premises
until we could get a search man in.
We have increased that through training of men in the patrol dis-
tricts who are normally on patrol, but are available for crime scene
327
search. We now liave 125 men assigned capable of that fimction and
have increased the number of cases closed primarily through latent
fingerprints from 146 in 1968 to 720 in 1972.
We also last year, early last year, instituted a special case review
section in coordination with the U.S. attorney's office in order to review
the cases that are dropped by the prosecutor to ascertain the reasons
for it, so we can train our men in making cases better and also bring
to the, attention of the supervisors and the prosecutor's offices those
cases which we felt should have gone forward.
The third aspect of our investigative processes which I think had
some effect is the devising of a modern lineup room and establishment
of procedures which are in conformity with the 1968 court rules on
lineups.
And the fourth aspect I would mention is the increasing use of guide-
lines, issuance of guidelines to the force, in order to strengthen the
department in those cases which otherwise would be lost by the exclu-
sionary rule.
On these last four things, if I could, I Avould like to have Mr. Alprin,
my general counsel, speak on that because he worked closely with these
programs and could give you some insight into them.
Chairman Pepper. We would be glad to have you.
Mr. Alprin. Thank you, JNIr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I think the most important function of my particular
job is to assure wherever I can that arrests that members of the de-
partment make, where possible, result in successful court prosecutions.
As Chief Wilson pointed out, there is a great lag and there always
has been between arrests we make and convictions at the other end of
the whole process.
In 1968, as you know, the Supreme Court decided three cases in-
volving lineups. The result of that — irrespective of whether the de-
cisions were right or wrong — was a very high priority being placed
on the lineup process. We came to find out over a period of a few years
that many witnesses who liad made identifications from photographs in
robbery cases, for example, were failing to identify the offenders, the
defendants, in actual lineup proceedings because of the fear factor.
They were there in the same room with a group of men, one of which
presumably was the defendant, and they were, in many cases, quite
afraid that the defendant who was presumably, out on bond at that
time or personal recognizance, would retaliate in some way.
So in August of 1971 Ave instituted a new lineup room. The major
feature of the room was the installation of one-way glass. So that all
defendants or all persons standing in the line, standing on one side of
the line, would not be able to see through that glass, although the wit-
ness on the other side would, of course, be able to see through the glass.
Also, one other feature was that tlie place where the defendants or
the people in the lineup would stand would be soundproof.
We kept statistics for 1971 and 1972 and we have noted a 12-percent
increase in the number of positive identifications that have been made
since installation in August of 1971 of the one-way glass.
In addition, I might point out that all of our lineups in the court
order are counseled ; lawyers appear for defendants in all of them. All
of them are tape recorded, photographs of all of the lineups are made
and presented to the court at the appropriate time.
95-158— 73— pt. 1—22
328
In almost all of the cases that I liaA'e knowledge of our lineup proce-
dures have been sustained since the middle of 1971.
If I may move on to the case review section : We instituted that in
April of 1972 because we knew a lot of the arrests Tve were making were
resulting in these being dropped by the prosecutor the first day they
were brought to the court.
In other words, we would make an arrest and we would bring the
case to the court the next morning and the prosecutor would drop the
case or no paper, which is our own peculiar term of art for dropping a
case in the District of Columbia.
We decided that it was time we took a look at all of those cases. So
far as we knew at that time, perhaps at this time, no other police de-
partment in the country and no one in the country, on a systematic
basis was looking at that wliole category of cases that was dropped ini-
tially by the prosecutor.
So, under orders of Chief Wilson, the case review section w^as in-
stituted in April of 1972. One of its purposes was that we knew that
there had to be some areas in which our own performance, police pei'-
formance, could be improved to perhaps save some cases. We required
that wherever we found a case in which a police officer had made an
error of some kind that his prosecution report after the case had been
dropped would be returned to his commanding officer, who then would
be required to reinstruct him or to have him reinstructed and coun-
seled in Avhat he did wrong; hopefully, so that the same kind of
problem would not occur again and result in another case being
dropped at a later time.
When we first started maintaining the unit in April, for the first 3
months; April, May, and June of 1972, we found that approximately
30 percent of all cases that we presented to the U.S. attorney in the
superior court were dropped immediately on the first day. This struck
us as a high figure, but my own judgment, from talking with various
administrators around the country it is no higher, and perhaps even
lower, than a lot of major cities which have a serious crime situation
and backlogged courts.
In any case, through the reinstruction process and also through put-
ting pressure and discussing matters with the I'^.S. attorney, and with
the court, in many areas that don't involve police performance at all
but result in no papered cases, we have succeeded in lowering the rate
approximately 7 percentage points so that the average rate for all of
the months since 1972 until the present is approximately 23.5 percent.
Now, that still, in my judgment, is not nearly as good as it should be
and it is still approximately one out of four cases we make being
dropped which is not a good thing and we hope we will be able to loAver
the rates even further.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me. Does the prosecuting attorney give.
you the reason, in writing, why the cases were droi^ped ?
Mr. Alprin. He certainly cloes. The unit couldn't work without
that, Mr. Chairman. Since itbegan, the experiment has been conducted
with the cooperation of the U.S. attorney, who makes available to us
his prosecutors' jackets in each of the no-pai:)ered cases, and the rea-
sons which we catalog and keep statistics of are his reasons most of
the time.
I would point out that we have found that for the last 10 or 11
months of the survey, only approximately 10 percent of all of the cases
329
tliat are no papered result from a police, what we call a police, prob-
lem— a police misperformance or nonperformance of some kind.
Almost everything else results from systemic problems within the
sj'stem. For example: witness problems and inti-a family assaults, of
which we have many in the District of Columbia and which account
perliaps for 5-0 to 60 percent of all no-papered cases.
With regard to intraf amily or iiitrapersonal assaults, normally there
is no desire on anyone's part to prosecute.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me. In most of those cases, what was
the reason given?
Mr. Alppjx. In most of the cases, the reason that was given was
the complaining witness did not want to prosecute tlie defendant.
Tlie complaining witness in many cases woidd be the wife, the girl
friend, the boy friend, a friend of some other kind, who was assaulted
in some way, perhaps injured, perhaps taken to the hospital, and an
arrest was made.
Tlie case went down to the U.S. attorney the next morning and,
by tliat time, everybody was calm again and the complaining witness
did not Avant to prosecute so the U.S. attorney dropped those cases.
But certainly tliere is no police nonperformance or fault involved
in tliose cases, and that is a great number of cases.
Also, we have a lot of cases in which in other kinds of situations
witnesses do not a])i:)ear the next morning; complaining witnesses or
other identifying witnesses. They just don't ap])ear and can't be found
and if they don't appear and can't be found the case can't be made
and those cases are dropped.
The point I am making is although the rate is high and although
it ]ias come down since we have been running this experiment, most
of it — perhaps 80 to 90 percent of it — results from factors wliich
really don't have anytliing to do with police performance.
Ciiairman Pepper. Justice Tom Clark was telling me a few days
ago about a practice by a certain ]:)rosecuting attorney who, ratlier than
waiting until the case was called for trial, would take a look at what
the evidence was. He would, at the xcvy time of the arraignment of
the defendant get his lawyer, or the court-ap]^ointed lawyer, to meet
witli liim and he would run down the list of the defenses tliis man
M'ould make that would indicate what tlie defense was going to be.
In the case the Justice put, he was in a certain place at a certain
time and could prove it bv a certain v:itness. "Do you thinlc that is
o-oiiiir to l)e vour defense?'' "Yes, sir; that is going to be my defense."
"Well, let's check up on that."
.\nd he would have tliat checked out and if it did appear that he
really did have a valid alibi that he could probably adapt then the
l)ro^ocuting attorney might dismiss the case without holding him in
jail, having him make bond, or waiting until they were set and ready.
Does the prosecuting attorney here follow any procedure like that
at all?
]\Ir. Alprix. Do you jnean, ^Mr. Chairr.ian, Avitli defense counsel?
Chairman Pepper. Yes.
]\rr. At.prix. Yes. I think the local prosecutor would like to do that
in as many cases as he could. But my own experience as a prosecutor
for ?> years has been to the effect that defense counsel won't tell you
what their defense is, or might be, at the time of trial. I can recall
330
many cases in which I said to defense counsel, when I was an assistant
U.S. attorney, "Here's my file, you can have it, read it all, all of it,
if I can look at yours and read all of it," and not one of them ever
took me up on this.
Chairman Pepper. That is one thing we are going into. The
courts ought to have authority to have something akin to what we call
a pretrial conference in civil cases. And you know, attorneys are re-
quired to come before the court before a case is brought to trial.
I think the court could require a defendant at a reasonable time
after his arrest and arraignment, as soon as he can get a lawyer, a rea-
sonable time at least after he gets a lawyer, to be required to disclose
what his defense is going to be. There is no reason to wait imtil he gets
right up to the trial and has the police there and witnesses all there,
the delay, the expense, and everything. The public has some interest,,
too, in the expedition of this trial.
Mr. Alprin. I think so, definitely. I would like to see that happen.
There is in the local district court, a notice of alibi rule which does,,
upon proper motion by the prosecutor, require the defense counsel
to notify the prosecutor if he is going to use the alibi defense, and that
does occur at the present time.
Chairman Pepper. I think we will have the prosecuting attorney
and maybe one of the more senior judges to testify here and we wilt
go into that to see whether or not something like that could be done.
Mr. Alprin. One other important area I think tliat we have been in-
volved in for the last several years is the promulgation of written
guidelines for police officers in legally connected areas, in the form of
orders, general orders of the department, rather than training bulletins
to which the men are not necessarily held accountable. We have done
this at the present time in two areas : In the area of eyewitness identi-
fication, and also in the area of automobile searches. We have promul-
gated strict rules the policemen must follow in connection with
returning suspects to the scene for identification purposes about which
the Supreme Court and other courts have written, and with regard
to that order which came out a]iproximately 2 years ago, it has been
noted with approval by the local U.S. Court of Appeals on a number
of occasions.
We are planning for this year to promulgate orders in the area of
"stop and frisk" authority, and searches of persons and places with-
out warrants.
I think that it is very important to the man on the street, the police-
man on the street, to know what you as an administrator expect of
him rather than leaving everything to his discretion and judgment.
You have to tell him what you want him to do and if he doesn't do it
then there is a reason to be unhappy with his performance.
That really concludes about what I have to say, sir.
Chairman Pepper. Chief, do you have a further statement to make ?
Mr. Wilson-. No, Mr. Chairman. That was essentially what I had
as an opening statement.
Chairman Pepper. Mr, Lynch, would you like to inquire ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes, sir ; thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief Wilson, would it be fair to say your Department has been
substantially reorganized since 1966 ?
331
Mr. WiLSOx. The Department was totally reorganized in 1967,
January 1967, and there hav^o been some refinements in that orga-
nization. But it is essentially the organization of 1967.
Mr. Lynch. Could you very briefly describe what the major ele-
ments of that reorganization were, sir ?
Mr. "WiLsox. A\''ell, inasmuch as it grew out of the lACP survey
wliich had 531 recommendations, it is liard to pick out any prijicipal
ojies. It was essentially a complete reorganization. Prior to 1967 there
were about, I think by varying counts, 25 to 30 different divisions
reporting directly to the chief or his executive officer. These have
been consolidatecl into four bureaus, plus the General Council's Office,
wliich report directly to the chief of police. Beyond that, we have con-
solidated the 14 precincts in the city into seven police districts. There
was a complete reorganization of the Detective Operation which, in-
cidentally, Ave tried and did not like and we reverted to a system some-
wi>at like the one we had prior to 1967.
There was establislnnent of several new bureaus, a planning and
development division, a field inspection division. At the time of the
reorganization, we were in the process of instituting a data processing
division. So it was a complete overhaul of the Department of 1967.
Mr. Lyxch. Would your judgment be that the reorganization has
at least indirectly, aided the Department insofar as the efficiency of
its operations and therefore, indirectly as a crime reducing agent.
Mr. WiLSox. Wei], I don't want to talk down the reorganization be-
cause I think the I'eorganization was good, but the reorganization took
place in 1967, and the crime almost doubled between then and 1969. So
you can't really come up with a cause and effect. But, of course, I realize
that future benefits often are purchased after problems.
For example, we had a great deal of difficulty with the consolida-
tion of the precincts into districts, primarily, because we were in
a state of crime crisis at the time we did it. I was chief when we did
it and I thought we should go ahead and do it. And in the long run,
I am not sure I wouldn't rather have done it in more stable times. My
answer is, I think the reorganization was good for the Department, but
I don't laiow that the reorganization is fundamental to achieving re-
ductions in crime. I think the Department can achieve reductions in
crimes without massive reorganization.
Mr. Lyxch. The LACP survey you mentioned was, in fact, com-
missioned by the President's Commission on Crime in the District
of Columbia.
Mr. WiLsox. That is light.
'Mr. Lyxch. That Commission was promulgated by the Johnson
administration ; is that correct ?
Mr. WiLsox. Eight.
Mr. Lyxch. Since 1968 or 1969. I believe, the size of your Depart-
ment has approximately doubled. I think it is 78 percent.
]\Ir. WiLSox. Not reallv doubled. The Department, as I recall, was
at about 3,000 men in 1966, 3,000 police plus 700-odd civilians. The
force was increased to 4,100, I believe, in 1968, 1969, and then the
authorization Avas increased to 5,100. So, it has not doubled but it has
increased substantially.
Mr. Lyxch. The FBI UCR Section has advised us that you have
.approximately 7.6 police employees, including civilians, per thousand
332
population. I think, however, that is a metropolitan figure and not one
confined to the geographic limits of the District. Do yon Icnow, approx-
imately, what your police-citizen ratio is per thousand?
Mr. Wilson. It is a little less than that now because they are taking^
it at the peak of 5,100 and, of course, because of budget limitation we
are down to 4,950 as an operating strength now ; so that is a little high.
It is probably in the neighborhood of seven per thousand population.
Mr. Lynch. Yesterday afternoon Chief Winston Churchill of the
Indianapolis Department testified before this committee. He has a po-
lice-citizen ratio of 1.7, which, incidentally, is the lowest of all of the
12 cities which are presenting information before this committee.
He has i-educed crime by 26 percent or thereabouts, which is approxi-
mately the same as your 1971-72 reduction, I believe. I think it is 2G.9
or 29.6. It is in the same ballpark. He gave an unequivocable '"no"" to a
question as to whether or not he needed more policemen. I realize it is
difficult to make comparisons, but how would you explain how a chief
of police, with no increase in personnel and with an incredibly low
ratio of ]Dolice to citizens, could achieve that kind of reduction ?
Mr. Wilson. I think it is possible. Of course, one of the problems of
comparing the District of Columbia with Indianapolis is you have to
recognize that the District of Columbia is the core city of a metro-
politan area of some 3.5 million people and has a population of its
own of 736,000, more or less. But it is the core city and it is the core
which houses most of the problems of the area. And it is at the
center of a major metropolitan area; whereas Indianapolis, on the
other hand, which has a population of about the same, is the entire
metropolitan area. Which means somewhere within that 750,000 they
have a much smaller core than the District of Columbia.
Mr. Lynch. Excuse me. That is not quite accurate. He is at the core
of a metropolitan area of 1.123 million people, according to 1971 data.
Mr. Wilson. Okaj^.
Mr. Lynch. But his population is much less than yours.
Mr. Wilson. The fact is he is substantially the metropolitan area,
whereas we are not.
Mr. Lynch. Right.
Mr. Wilson. And, of course, beyond that, I admit we have a heavy
])olice force in the District of Columbia. There is no point in deny-
ing it.
Mr. Lynch. Do you need more ?
Mr. Wilson. No.
Mr. Lynch. In addition, Chief, to the 5,000 members of your own
Department, this city also has the advantage, it seems to me, of having
a number of other police agencies who are performing some kind of
street level enforcement duties. Are you familiar with those figures?
Could you give us a rundown? We have for instance, the Capitol
Police
Mr, Wilson. Of course, the Capitol Police — on the order of a thou-
sand policemen — are confined to the Canitol Grounds only and do no
service within the city. The Executive Protective Service does some
service in the streets in terms of Embassies. The Park Police has
some — frankly, I don't know the numbers they have that actually
are working on the streets.
Mr. Lynch. Do they materially, in your judgment, add to your
capabilities as the chief of police here ?
333
Mr. Wilson. Tlie Executive Protective Service certainly has been
of assistance in reducing crime because they are a patrol force on the
sti-eets of the city. The Park Police are on the streets but they arc a
relatively small force in comparison and, of course, the Capitol Police^
quite frankly, are confined only to the Capitol grounds and are
not that substantially a part of the city, itself.
Mr. Lynch, So at least to an undetorminod extent the 7.6 figure
or thereabouts ])er capita could be slightly increased by adding those
people Avho, while they don't perform full-time enforcement function
on the streets, do contribute.
Mr. WiLSOX. That is possible. Of course, that is typical in many
cities where there are special park authoiity police or transit police
or industrial police. There are other industrial-type police here, in
terms of the General Services Administration police.
Mr. Lyxcit. As I recall. Chief Wilson, the motor scooter patrol
which you have used for a number of years was initially the result of
an Office of Law Enforcement Assistance grant.
Mr. WiLSOx. That is correct.
Mr. Lyxck. I believe in 1066.
IVIr. WiLSox. About that time, j-es.
Mr. Lyxch. Could you tell us approximately how much LEAA
funding j^our Department has received since that legislation was
enacted in June of 1968? ^
Mr. WiLSOX. No, I could not. 1, frankl}-, do not have the figure off
the top of my head.
Mr. Lynch. Could you give us an idea as to what programs a sub-
stantial amount of LEAA funds were used?
]Mr. Wn.soN. We obtained a substantial amount of LEAA funds.
The biggest part of the funds that came to us since 1968, Avould have
been in 1969-70, with regard to bolsters of the uniformed patrol
force. It was a substantial grant at that time. There have been other
grants, which are not all that substantial, in terms of money for im-
proved training and for technological assistance.
iNIr. Lynch. Are you indicating that at least a substantial portion
of LEAA funding went to pay salaries of policemen in this
jurisdiction?
]Mr. AViLSox. It went to the support of the increased police force
in this jurisdiction in 1970: that is correct. A substantial part of the
money that came to the ^Metropolitan Police Department, not the
District of Columbia funds, as a total.
Mr. Lyn^ch. I understand that. They went to the Metropolitan
Police Department. And there is, is there not, a general LEAA guide-
line regarding the amount of sui:)port that the LEAA is supposed
to give any city, or any municipality, or any kind of law enforcement
agenc}^ that is supposed to go to salaries?
Mr. Wilson. I am quite sure our grants were in accordance with
the law.
[For the information requested above concerning LEAA funds and
programs, see letter received for the record, dated May 3, 1973, at the
end of ]Mr. Wilson's testimony.]
Mr. Lynch. You have. I believe, worked closely with the Narcotics
Administration liere. Is it your judgment that that agency has mate-
riallv contributed to your success in reducing the rate of crime in this
city?
334
Mr. WiLSOK. I would judge tliat it probably lias. Now, it is difficult
to say. The reduction in crime began in November 1969, the agency
l^ecame effective in June, but I think that as well as a lot of other
things contributed as well ; for examjjle, the revitalized court system
find street lighting. I would say, yes, it was an indispensable part of
the program which President Nixon initiated to deal with the crime
here.
Mr. Lynch. As the chief police administrator in your jurisdiction,
how do you view the present narcotics and dangerous drugs situa-
tions ? Is it gettmg better or is it getting worse ?
Mr. Wilson. It is substantially improved.
The problem of narcotics, of course, is that unlike other crime — even
with other crimes there are problems with the statistical data avail-
able, but in narcotics there is practically no data that is solid, so we
often don't know we have a problem until it almost is a crisis. But, on
the basis of what we have been able to tell in the last year, or perhaps
in the last 6 months, it would be more accurate, there has been a sig-
nificant improvement in the problem of heroin, at least. The use of
lieroin seems to have dropped off substantially and the traffic in heroin
seems to have dropped off substantially.
It is difficult to ascertain exactly why this is. It is possibly a com-
bination of enforcement efforts. It may be the reduction of troop
strength in Vietnam. It may be the political impact in overseas coun-
tries which were producing heroin. But, in any event, there is a notable
]'eduction in the heroin traffic in this city, beginning last summer, and
an apparent reduction in the general use of heroin.
In terms of marihuana usage, it seems to be up. In terms of other
drags, it is much more difficult to tell. None of them are serious enough
to be the crisis which heroin use was.
Mr. Lynch. Have your narcotic squad officers indicated in any way
to you whether there has been a marked increase in barbiturate and
amphetamine use ?
Mr. Wilson. There has been but not to the point I would charac-
terize it as a crisis. And, of course, as a side benefit, the use in bar-
biturates and amphetamines does not have the broader law enforce-
ment implications heroin does inasmuch as that usage usually does
not require the user to commit crimes to support their habits.
Mr. Lynch. Chief, it is my understanding, at least, for a certain
percentage of all persons arrested for serious crime in the District,
there is now a program administered at the jail requiring, or asking,
those people to submit to your urinalysis examination. And if that
examination shows positively they are taking heroin and/or other
dangerous narcotics or drugs, they are then referred to an NTA coun-
selor. Do you participate in that program?
Mr. Wilson. We do not. That is after they have been arraigned and
are in the custody of the court and correctional authorities.
Mr. Lynch. Have you acted in cooperation with that program?
How do you regard it ? Is it a good thing ?
Mr. Wilson. I think it is a good thing. We are not actively involved
in it. The liaison between my agency and the Narcotic Treatment
Administration is through my narcotics division and we do keep
in close contact with them, but we are not actively involved in this
treatment program.
335
Mr. Lyxcii. Chief Wilson, of the 5,000 or so policemen — is that
an accurate figure, 5,000?
Mr. WiLsox. No. We presently are about 4,900.
Mr. Lynch. Of those 4,900 policemen, I wonder if you could tell
the committee how many you might have on the streets performing
street-level enforcement functions at any given time, especially during
the high-crime period of the day ?
Mr. Wilson. I didn't bring statistics with me. I will be glad to
furnish them, but I don't have any offhand statistics with me. In a
general time, I would judge at a peak crime period in terms of patrol,
about 600. But that varies from day to day and from time to time,
depending on what other acti\dties are going on in the city in terms
of demonstrations or other details.
[For the information requested above, see letter dated May 3, 1973,
at the end of Mr. Wilson's testimony.]
Mr. Lynch. Let's use that figure of 600 a day. If you would be
kind enough to supply us with that data it would be most helpful.
Of that approximate number of 600, how many would be in motorized
patrol 'I
Mr. Wilson. I would have to pro^dde the data. I, f ranklj', couldn't
off the top of my head.
Mr. Lynch. Do you have a substantial number of uniformed officers
who perform foot patrol in the District?
Mr. Wilson. We have a substantial combination of foot patroU
scooter patrol, and tactical patrol. Our emphasis during the last year
lias been on tactical use.
Mr. Lynch. What Avould that be ?
Mr. Wilson. Scooter patrol men in casual clothes. Or in essence,,
nondescript clothing, and now we are shifting to one of men on foot
patrol, which I would also characterize as a combination of foot-
scooter patrol.
Mr. Lynch. Tactical men would be used on a saturation basis ?
Mr. Wilson. Saturation basis rather than assigned to a peiTnanent
area within a permanent beat of their own.
j\Ir. Lynch. They would be designed to respond to a particular crime
problem in a particular area?
Mr. Wilson. Right.
Mr. Lynch. Chief, as you know, in 1066 the President's Commis-
sion on Crime in the District of Columbia indicated in a rather pro-
tracted statistical analysis that an overwhelming percentage of crime
in this jurisdiction was committed by young males, and because of
the particular racial balance in this community it happened to be
young black males. Is that still the case ?
_Mr. Wilson. That is still the case. It is substantially the case. I tliink
with some variations, depending upon the proportion of blacks in the
total population, that seems to be the case across the country that most
crime is committed by males between 15 and 24 years of age.
Mr. Lynch. You have a juvenile division in the Department ? "\Miat
does that division do ; how large is it ?
^ Mr. Wilson. The juvenile division in our Department has two func-
tions: One is essentially a liaison with the juvenile court in terms of
processing through individuals who are arrested into the juvenile
court and providing liaison service to the court. We do not any longer
336
liold specific disposition, make disposition of cases ourselves, at least,
in serious cases.
The juvenile division also encompasses our Police Boys Club, which
is a unit of about .60 men who are engaged in running athletic pro-
grams for police rapport with youth in the age range from 6 to 18.
About 25,000 is the current membersliip of youngsters.
Mr. Lynch. Do you have a crime prevention bureau, Chief?
Mr. WiLSox. We do not.
Mr. Lyxch. Have you considered establishing one ?
Mr. Wilson. I have considered and rejected it.
Mr. Lyxcii. What is your objection about those bureaus?
Mr. Wilson. I considered it and decided in terms of the general use.
We do some of the functions through other units of tlie Department
tind through the Boys Club, through the comnumity relations divi-
sion which engages in programs such as identification, operation identi-
fication, and in terms of advising citizens on locks. But, in terms of a
crime prevention bui-eau, no. I have decided not to organize one.
Mr. Lynch. Could you describe what you referred to as "operation
identification.''
Mr. Wilson. It is a fairly common practice in the Ignited States now
of the police department, or some other agency, sponsored in conjunc-
tion with the police department providing electric etching tools and
encouraging citizens to mark their television sets, hi-fi's, other things
susceptible to burglary and theft, with their social security number so
they are identifiable in the event they are stolen.
Mr. Lynch. Is there any way to ju<lge whether that has an impact ?
]\Ir. Wilson. There is i-eally not. Our judgment is that it probably
does have an impact. A part of the program is stickers are issued by
individuals to place on their windows, indicating their material within
the household has been so identified, and we do not have any solid
statistical information that would indicate whether or not it is success-
ful. Burglaries are declining, so is crime, generally, so whether it helps
or not it is difficult to say. It is a fairly inexpensive program in terms
of investment so it is worth undertaking on the assumption it may be
helpful.
Chairman Pepper. Chief Wilson, j'ou have the highest number of
police per thousand population of any citv in the country ?
:Mr. Wilson. We do."
Chairman Pepper. And you have had a reorganization of the De-
partment, which is commendable: and you have had an increase in
personnel in the area of prosecution. Definite progress has been made.
Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir.
Chairman Pepper. And you had an increase in the number of judges,
and attention has been paid to speeding up disposition of cases in the
courts.
Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir.
Chairman Pepper. And you had an increase in the drug treatment
and rehabilitation program and the number of addicts that are being
treated in that program. All of those things have been contributing
factors to the reduction of crime in the District of Columbia, I am sure.
Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir ; certainly.
Chairman Pepper. All of which are desirable. Anything which
would make an effort to reduce crime is significant.
337
May I ask you about juvenile delinquency. Have you liad any
improvement in that area?
Mr. WiLSOX. The improvement that we have had, Mr. Chairman,
ai)pears to be a part of the general downward trend in crime. The an-
swer is ''Yes."' There is. I would judge, a significant miprovement in the
l^roblem of juveniles. "We do not see any longer, as we did 3 years ago,
A'ery young ju\'cniles committing on a frequent basis. AVe had a number
of holdupmen who were 13 and 14 years of age. AVe had a serious prob-
lem with juveniles in 1969. We had some serious problems in the school
system in 1969. All of which, while they arc not completely eradicated,
are certainly ameliorated by now.
And there is some improvement.
Chairman Pepper. Do you have more juvenile judges appointed?
Mr. WiLSOx. Yes, sir; as a part of the court reorganization the
juvenile court was reorganized into the superior court system. Addi-
tionally, provision was made for juveniles of the age of 16 and 17 who
are charged with crimes such as robbery to be triecl as adults, if in the
judgment of the U.S. attorney they should be. So there have been
some changes.
Chairman Pepper. Do you offhand recall the figures as to participa-
tion of }■ oung people in commission of serious crime ?
Mr, WiLSOX. I couldn't give you a specific, Mr. Chairman, but my
recollection is that in terms of crime index offenses, \oungsters, at the
l)eak, were running on the order of 35- to iO-pereent of serious crimes.
Juveniles were on the order of 35- to 40-percent of serious crimes, in-
cluding robbery.
Chairman Pepper. I believe, if I recall correctly, in a conversation
with you one time that you mentioned something to the effect that
about two-thirds of the serious crimes were committed by males under
28 years of age.
Mr. "WiLSox. That is absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman; yes, sir.
Cliairman Pepper. So you regard the process by which we deal with
juveniles or young adults who commit crimes, as a very critical area
in the crime process ?
]\Ir. "WiLSOx. ]Mr. Chairman, if we could solve the problems of juve-
niles and young adults who commit serious crimes we could stand what
the rest of the people do.
Chairman Pepper. In other words, that is the input into the criminal
system ?
Mr. WiLSox. That is tlie input into the criminal system — and much
of the criminal system.
Cliairman Pepper. And that is one of the subjects we are particularly
going into during these hearings. We ai'e going to try to get the best
thought and wisdom in the country with respect to how best to deal
with juvenile crime. We share your view that is one of the critical areas
in dealing with the crime problem.
Chief, as much as we commend you for all that you have done — and
it is very noteworthy — nevertheless, one of our distinguished Senators
was shot down on the street in front of his home. We read in the paper
every day about the commission of violent crime, and I believe if the
figures I have before me are correct, that there has been an increase in
the District of Columbia in homicides and rapes in the relatively recent
past. The other categories have gone down except for grand larcenj'.
338 I
But I believe, according to an article I liave here from the New York
Times quoting figures about the District, there has been some increase
in homicide and rape.
Mr. Wilson. Well, every category of crime, ]Mr. Chairman, in 1972
was down from its peak period. Homicide in 1972 was down from 287
in 1969 to 245 in 1972. Eape was down from 776 in 1969, to 714 in 1972.
The problem with offenses, particularly offenses such as homicide and
rape which are not affected all that greatly by police activity and which
constitute a small number of offenses, is, it depends on where you take
your measure from. There is no category of crime I know of in the Dis-
trict that is not down from its peak. jMaybe a temporary u^DSurge.
Chairman Pepper. This was for 1 month, I am advised.
Chief Wilson. Yes, sir ; those things do occur and that, of course, is
one of the problems with measuring on a monthly basis. There is reason
to be concerned in both of those categories, I would hasten to add.
Chairman Pepper. The last question I want to ask you is this : In spite
of all that has been done, the people of the District of Columbia, I
think, still do not feel that they have secured safety on the streets and
in their homes and in their places of business, and many violent crimes
against a person are committed every day in the District.
If you didn't have to concern yourself with money, what could you do
if the President of the United States called you and said :
I ain proud of what yon have done but we very simply have got to make the
streets and homes and working places, recreation places of the people who fre-
quent the District of Columbia, relatively safer. What more can we do than we
are now doing?
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chainnan, the President of the United States has
done just that. And let me make the point that neither I, nor the
mayor, nor the President is happy with the crime in the District of
Columbia. While we have substantially cut ci-ime a little bit more than
half since 1969 ; we are still at the level of 1966, you know. You have
to recognize that crime did double from 1966 to 1969. We are now at
the level of 1966, which was twice the level of 1962. And in 1965 crime
was so serious the President, at that time, felt it necessary to appoint
a crime commission to find ways to deal with the problem.
So there is certainly ample reason for us to consider the fact that
citizens still are concerned.
INIr. Lynch. Chief, I wonder if I could interrupt for a moment on
that. I have some statistics — and with your indulgence, Mr. Chair-
man— which show that in 1966 there were 7.7 homicides in the Wash-
ington SMSA, as compared with 12.3 in 1971. In 1966, there were 13.5
rapes as opposed to 36.5 in 1971. In 1966 the robbery rate was 189.4 as
opposed to 510 in 1971. In 1966, aggravated assault was 198.5 as op-
posed to 237.1 in 1971.
Mr. Wilson. I am not talking about 1971, Mr. Lynch, I am talk-
ing about 1972: and there was a 27-percent decrease in crime from
1971 to 1972. I think you cut into all of those categories of crime.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me just a minute, Chief, and Counsel. The
bell has rung and I will have to go. Wliat I wanted to ask you is this r
Are the people of this country and this District, this city, going to have
to accept the fact that we have got to live with the volume of crime
we now have? Can't we do more to bring about a significant reduc-
339
tion ill the amount, at least of violent crime, we have in the country
today ; and, if so, Iioav can we do it ?
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, they are not going to have to, and I
don't think they are going to be satisfied with crime in this Nation.
The January Gallup poll showed crime is viewed by most Americans
as being the primary urban problem. I think in the District of Colum-
bia we have demonstrated that crime, as a very serious situation, can
be substantially reduced. I think we are on the road in terms of doing
more here. I think we liave to continue doing some of these things we
are doing now. We still have to maintain a very large police force; we
have to continue with the court rcoi'ganization. I think these things
are going to ha\e to reduce crime to the point we can reduce the police
force. I think in other cities much the same is going to have to be done,
although there is reason for optimism in that 32 of the 50 larger cities
had reductions in crime last year and, as I recall, there were 10 cities
in the Xation
Chainnan Pepper. Excuse me just a minute. I didn't ask 3'ou about
the correctional system.
Mr. Wilson. We had some substantial problems with that over the
last few years, although I have the belief that has been improved in
the last year. But it does need close attention, certainly.
Cliairman Pepper. The basic reason we are holding these hearings
is not only to bring before the Congress and the country the best
things beino- done in all of the critical areas that deal with crime, but
to try to tackle the problem with the best brains we have m the comi-
try, and discover wliat more can we do than we are now doing?
Mr. Lynch. Chief AVilson, is there any question in your mind thcit a
very substantial proportion of serious crime is committed by
recidivists ?
Mr. Wilson. It is hazardous, Mr. Lynch, to talk in terms of per-
centages, in terms of what is serious crime. One of the problems that is
inherent in crime statistics is — if you take an}- category such as bur-
glar}-, for example, and say burglary is a serious crime — an awful lot
of burglaries are sort of trashy little cases you can't characterize as
serious crime. If vou take serious burglaries, a lot are recidivists. If
you characterize robbery as a serious crime and assume that purse
snatching or pickpocketing is robbeiy, you have one thing. But if you
take holdups, there is no question holdups are committed mainlj^ by
recidivists. Our indication is that upward of 70 percent of holdups are
committed by individuals who are rearrested indeed for that crime.
So there is a heavy problem in terms of particularly holdups and
sometimes burglaries and rapes, as an example, with repeat offenders.
^Ir. Lynch. Taking for a moment, holdups or armed robbery,
Chief, you did indicate that is a crime committed at least in some
heavy proportion by people who have done the same thing in the past.
'yiv. Wilson, That is correct.
]\Ir. Lynch. Are there a significant number of robberies committed
in this jurisdiction by people who are out on bail or who are otherwise
pending adjudication for a prior, similar charge ?
]SIr. Wilson. There are. Figures vary from month to month, but it
runs on the order of 60 to TO percent of individuals who are either on
bail, probation, or parole; with bail being, I would say, the greatest
proportion of those.
340
Mr. Lynch. What in your judgment can the criminal justice sys-
tem, as a system, do to remedy that problem ?
Mr. Wilson. I believe that we need to do a lot more work and are
doing work on it. I think we are coming closer to the solution. You
have to recognize the superior court reorganization only assumed re-
sponsibility for holdups last August, and now have the full responsi-;
bility for that. I think the continued reduction in types of crime, plus
the identification of major offenders by the U.S. attorneys, Avhich is
now being done through LEAA financed computerization of offender
records, will serve to assist with the problem.
I have given up any hope of a workable change in the bail law, quite
frankly. I think that is what is needed, but the last attempt at a
change did not work out and I have given up much hope we are going
to achieve a change in the bail law which will have a substantial effect.
Mr. Lyxcii. You say you have given up hope on the bail law ? Would
your judgment be that speedy trial legislation would be at least half
a loaf?
Mr. Wilson. I have some concern that speedy trial legislation may
become a tool for the defense rather than for the Government, so I
have some reservaitions about that. I don't know if it is really going
to solve the problem. It may if properly constructed to place sufficient
constraints on defense to go to trial.
Mr. Lynch. Chief, the recent March 28, 1973, preliminary crime
data released by the FBI — and I am sure you have more current data
for your own jurisdiction — indicated all major categories of crime, with
the exception of rape, were down in the District of Columbia. Ag-
gravated assault was down a pittance, homicide was down somewhat
substantially, robbery was down by a very substantial amount, rape
was slightly up. That is the 1971-72 dalta. You probably have more
recent data. On a nationwide basis that same information indicated
that index crime was down.
However, violent crime across the Nation was up, and after one
analyzed the data it was apparent that it was up from 2 to 13 percent
in all suburban, all rural, and all urban areas of 500,000 or less popu-
lation. Usually, the index crimes, as you know, are regarded by the
FBI and by law enforcement experts as a good index of hovr much
crime we have. How would you account for the general reduction in
property crimes but a general increase in crimes of violence?
Mr. Wilson. Well, first, I would dispute there was a general increase
in the crimes of violence nationwide. My recollection is there was a 1-
percent decrease in violent crime, if you took your urban areas.
Mr. Lynch. Excuse me. The FBI indicated there was a l-i^ercent
increase in violent crime.
Mr. Wilson. I be^ your pardon. During the last 3 months of the
year, my understanding is, the index was down by 8 percent and violent
crime down by 3 percent, wliich is one of the problems with annual
data. Changes" frequently occur in the middle of the year and trends
are concealed by the annual data.
I think that our own experience here has be«n that it is far easier
to cut into property crime than violent crime, simply because tilings
such as auto theft, for example, have been cut by the auto lock, for one
thing, and also it is fairly easy cut into by aggressive police intercept
I)atrol and by computerization, for example, which cuts into auto theft
341
simpljr because it makes it possible for the man out on tlie street to
know when a car is stolen or not, whereas he could not in the past. The
same is true with regard to burglary. These are crimes which are gen-
erally much easier to cut into than even the crime of robbery.
The crime of rape and murder, of coui-se, are very difficult for the
jjolice to cut into, since f re^quently they most often occur off the street,
out of police patrol, and it is something that has to be cut in through
apprehension and effective dealing with the individual through the
rest of the system.
But I think much of the statement was our experience in the District
of Columbia; we were able, first, to cut into property crime and it has
only been in the firet year. 1970, for example, when we achieved our
first reductions in crime. JNIy recollection is we did poorly in terms of
robbei-y reduction. Robbery was the later offense to move down.
I see a lot of room for optimism in the national crime statistics. I
think that the decrease, although it was not all that substantial during
1*,>T2, indicates a turning. I think the turning was indicated even earlier
than that — in 1971 — by the fact there was a leveling off' in crime. And
we showed about the same effect here. When 3'ou look at the annual
data you get a leveling effect instead of a decrease. I can't say specif-
ically why violent crime doesn't move as rapidly. I think it is largely
that propeity crime is just more susceptible to police control. Aggra-
vated assault, for example, is almost an entirely off-the-street offense.
Mr. Keatixg. Chief, may I ask a couple of questions, please ?
I would like to bo specific on one particular topic, and that is. the
rape that occurred, or the assault that occurred, at George Washing-
ton University campus. Two girls were involved. My first question is:
Inmiediately after the acquittal, was there any increase or decrease in
reported rapes to your department ?
]Mr. Wilson. I frankly don't know, Mr. Keating. Rape is such a
small, relatively small number, that if j'ou take it on a montlily basis
1 doubt you could make a statistical inference. I will be glad to see
what it showed, but I, frankly, don't know.
Mr. Keatixg. Rape has increased across the Nation. We talked to
some of the other police departments and there is some indication they
are concerned about the element of proof necessary, and the difficulty
if a girl submits to a boy's violence upon her, then there seems to be a
])resumption that she submitted voluntarily and, therefore, there is no
crime committed.
Are there any efforts being made by your department to change that
at all to make it easier for a conviction or, at least, to protect the
women more in our society today ?
Mr. WiLSox'. The city council is presently engaging in, or arranging
hearings to ascertain what changes in the law can be made. That prob-
lem is recognized primarily as an outgrowth of the George Washing-
ton University incident. There is no question the law is grossly unfair
to women and, of course, it is not reflected only in rape, but I guess that
probably is the worst example of all of the crimes. And. of course, a lot
of concern, more concern from the police point of view for persons
probably guilty than for victims. I think rape is probably the one ex-
ample which needs the attention most.
Mr. Keatixg. That case has caused quite a bit of controversy around
here locally, as I understand it.
342
Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir ; very much.
Mr. Keating. Because of the role played, or allegedly played, by dif-
ferent people involved. But it is not unique to this area to have a lot
of acquittals and I am wondering if you feel that people who have
been assaulted in this manner are reporting as often as they should
in the light of the difficulty of obtaining a conviction ; what they have
to go through.
Mr. Wilson. My feeling is they are not. There is a theory which
probably has some basis in fact that part of the increasing crime in
recent years has been the increasing willingness of women to talk
about sex offenses than was true in the past. It has long been known
that many rapes come to police attention on the basis of confessions
of rapists : that rape is a grossly underreported crime in terms of the
reports made by victims. It is confessions of rapists. We have known
many unreported rapes that have occurred.
So there is no question it is underreported and there is no question
a lot of it goes, first, out of the embarrassment of the incident to the
victim and, also, by the knowledge that the victim may essentially
end up on trial if the case does go to court.
Mr. Keating. I only heard j^our previous comment that you felt
speedy trial legislation might develop another advantage for the
defense. I would submit that the way the system is now, there is an
advantage for the defense in the long delays that are occasioned by
the lawyers, not necessarily for the defendant himself because he
might be languishing in jail. But isn't it to the advantage of law
enforcement generally to have a quick, speedy trial and obtain either a
con\'iction or acquittal ?
Mr. Wilson. There is no question of that. I think that the improved
situation with regard to trial in the District of Columbia has had a
lot to do with the success that has been achieved in reducing crime.
There is no question that quick trial and quick disposition of the case
is far to the benefit of law enforcement.
Mr. Keating. One of the difficulties in achieving a speedy trial is
what kind of teeth in enforcement are you going to have getting it
tried within 60 days, which would be the optimum. About the only
thing can be dismissal of the charges, and my comment on that is that
if a prosecutor permits that to happen, or a judge permits that to
happen in his court, and it is a pretty violent crime, he is not going
to be on that court very long or not going to be prosecuting very long.
You are going to give the incentives for the judge who is presiding
in the criminal court to say, "OK, fellows, you are going to trial in
a week." Do that and enforce it. But some way we have to put some
teeth into getting this job done.
Mr. Lynch. My. Keating, I wonder if we could ask Mr. Alprin if,
in his judgment as general counsel of the Department, whether that
defect might not possibly be cured by the institution of a major
offender bureau ? Would that assist ?
Mr. Alprin. Something like that, Mr. Lynch.
You see, Congressman, that 60 days would be the optimum. I think
it could be substantially less than that for certain categories of
offenses. Substantially, less than that.
343
The problem with the dismissal after 60 days is that it creates an
assimiption that it is the prosecutor — at least here, which is the system
I know about — who is causing the delay most of the time. I don't be-
lieve that is true. The delays are caused 'by a lot of factors, many of
which the prosecutor has really no control over.
I would like to see teeth — maybe that would be one possible alterna-
tive— to enforce speedy trial for certain categories of offenses. But
teeth also directed at defense counsel, absconding defendants, or ^vhat
have you, any of the many factors which cause delays in the system.
Mr. Keating. Let's explore that for the moment. "N'Vliat teeth can
you put in it ? We can continue as we are with delays and so on, and
there is a lot of human element involved in consenting to another
continuance for one more time.
Mr. Alprin. I have done it myself.
Mr. Kf^vting. And the judge really has a primary responsibility
to control it. But what other alternative do you really have? You
can't say that if we don't try within 60 days, and if the defendant
doesn't come in, he can be convicted. There is no way under our system
of laws you can do that.
Mr. Alprin. No, you can't. But if the defendant can't be found, if
the trial is delayed for a long time and
Mr. Keating. I am not suggesting it can be dismissed if he skipped
town or if he has forfeited his bond. I am suggesting that if he is
sitting in the jurisdiction and he is not physically incapable, nor are
the witnesses, that is whether he is a victim or not, there is no reason
he shouldn't be tried in 60 days.
]Mr. Alprin. If I w^ere thejudge, I would order him, the prosecutor,
and defense counsel, to go to trial in 30 days and if they didn't I
would hold whoever was at fault in contempt.
jNIr. Keating. The judges are doing that and I am suggesting that
might be one way. The jurist faces the public wrath because you know,
justice delayed — that old adage — is justice denied for everybody. Not
only for the defendant, the victim, the witnesses who have to constantly
appear, the policeman who made the arrest because he may have to
come back six times which takes time away from that policeman being
on the beat or wherever he is supposed to be, but justice is denied for
everybody. And I submit that, and very strongly that one of the
greatest deterrents to crime we could have is bringing the defendant
or accused to the bar of justice at the earliest possible date and dispose
of that either by criminal conviction at the earliest possible date — and
then the punishment to follow shortly thereafter so that he knows he
is being punished for that crime, not 2 or 3 years dowm the road — or
acquittal. It is fresh in the minds of everyone.
Mr. Alprin. But you understand we put 1,200 cases through the
superior court every month. And while I agree with every word you
said, sir, and it is obviously true, tliere have to be priorities. O'bviously,
a robI)ery is more important than petty larceny or grand larceny which
is a felony. I think the whole system ought to put priorities on the
kinds of crimes w'e are concerned with and require those to go to
trial very quickly.
Mr. Keating. But you are also saying that the misdemeanant might
have to sit in jail for a longer period of time because he didn't commit
a more serious offense.
95-158 — 73— pt. 1 23
344
Mr. Alprin. Almost every alleged misdemeanant in the District of
Columbia is released on his personal recognizance or released under cer-
tain conditions, at the present time. So, I don't really think that is a
problem most of the time. There are exceptions.
Mr. Keating. Well, it seems to me that if my experience is correct,
and it is at least in my jurisdiction, there are many days the court-
room is vacant and some days when you have a lot of trials and can't
get enough juroi'S together. I imagine a lot of these things would come
into most otlier jurisdictions. There must be some way, through a mod-
ernized computer system, of putting all of the people together so de-
fense counsel can't come in with the excuse, 'T have to be in Federal
court or be in superior court or city court and, therefore, I need a
continuance." There has to be a great deal of pressure to get each
case tried and I think possibly the defense counsel is no more orderly
about continuances in this whole equation. That still doesn't make it
right. We have got to get these matters to trial because it is going to
help the citizen.
Mr. Alprin. We have come a long way in the court reorganization.
The last statistics I saw a month or two ago showed between the in-
dictment and trial for felonies the average delay now in the superior
court is 72 days ; 2 years ago it was a year oi- a year and a half in the
district court.
Mr. Keatixo. I guess while I am pressing so hard, I should also
take the time to connnend you l)ecause the District has done a good
job. They do an increasingly good job. I am saying also we can't be
satisfied until we have tried in a nnich shorter period of time. You
have done a tremendous job and the ci-ime rate here has been decreas-
ing, generally, and we have used those statistics often. So I think you
are certainly to be commended. But I have this thing about si:)eedy
trials because it is extremely important to all concerned and I am
searching for a way to put more teeth into it.
I recognize the peril of the dismissal of the charge, but I have yet
to be able to find another way of doing it that will put pressure on
those involved. If vou liave a sugo'estion. I would love to hear it. other
than the dismissal within that period of time,
Mr. Lynch. If I mav, Mr. Keating:?
Mr. Alprin, from the police point of view, it is your judgment
that there, at least, is not enough priority attention presently being-
given to serious and/or major criminals.
Mr. Alprin. That is my belief, sir,
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
Mr. Keattxo. I see there are some othei- members present. I will
yield back, Mr. Chairman, so others may ask some questions.
Mr. Rangel. Chief, recently there was an article in the Washington
Post which talked about a 15-block area which had the highest crime
rate in the District and perhaps in the general area. Could you elabo-
rate on the facts and circumstances surrounding that story ?
Mr. Wilson. Not with regard to that specific story, Mr. Rangel. I
read the stor}- but I didn't follow tlirouffh on that. We have the Carney
block system in the District of Columbia defining areas in which we
measure our crime, and at the time this story was written I believed
that happened to be the highest. It is in the general area of what is es-
sentially the third district which has been consistently our high crime
area over a period of many years, actually. That particular one is in
345
tlie lower part of the fourth district but the general area haa been a
high crime area over a period of many years.
It is reducino-. I don't believe there is any Carney block in the city
that hasn't had a reduction in the last couple of years. But it is in the
very center of the city, it is a problem area, an area of some problem.
Although I would elaborate by saying a coui)le of citizen leaders in the
area called my community relations division and complained they
Averen't nearly as afraid as the reporter would have led people to
believe.
Mr. Rangel. I suppose no one likes his neighborhood being the sub-
ject of such open criticism, but the story did say it was a high crime
area.
Mr. Wilson. It is that.
Mr. Rangel. We are all really trying to find out how we can apply
the progress that is made in the Disti'ict to similar type metropolitan
areas throughout the country. I sit on this connnittee. I sit on the House
Judiciary Committee, and I sit on the District of Columbia Commit-
tee, on its Subcommittee on the Judiciary. What I am trying to find ouf
exactly is how you have been able to get a decline in crime while most
major cities have been on the uprise. Have any specific studies been
made as to the causes of crimes in an area such as described bv the
Post?
Mr. WiLsox, I would say yes. as a generalization. The causes of crime
in that particular area and, indeed, in the generalized area sur-
rounding that are prett}- self-evident. It is the core of the city, it is a.
congested area, it is an area of high poverty, it is along one of the 1968
riot coriidors. It is an aiea where there are a lot of vacant buildings,
a lot of poor people living in the area. It is an area that suffers from
the worst of the social ills of the city.
Mr. Rangel. I thought your testimony said that you do find some
decreases ?
Ml". Wilson. There were decreases indeed in the early years ; our best
decreases were in the high crime areas because it was in the high crime
areas, and still is, where we concentrate most of our manpower. And
since there is a great deal of crime thei-e, it is much easier to reduce
where you have a great deal of crime than in some Carney block.
Mr. Rangel. Coukl you tell us what manner or what method you
have used? To what do you attribute the decrease? Was it because of
something difl'erent that the police department was doing?
Ml-. Wilson. I don't know that it was anything all that different.
Ml*. Rangel. It was largely traditional things. The vastly increased
jmlice force here, as was discussed earlier, tlie largest pei' capita police
force in tlie counti-y. We increased the recruitment of blacks, we have
increased tlie iise of scooters, which get foot patrolmen eilectively out
and in the community. We have increased the street lighting, particu-
larly in that ai'ca along the 14tli Street corridor. We have concentrated
high-intensity lighting in that area and throughout the city, there has
been a major impact on narcotic drug use which was a particular
j)rol)lem in that ai'ea.
Mr. Ranc;kl. Most of us on the District of Columbia Connnittee
i-eallv don't believe that we have the answers to the problems that
tlie District faces, but we are hopeful that since this is the Nation's
Capital })erhaps we could institute jjrograms that vrould sei-ve as a
model for the rest of the country and we could gain from all the expei'i-
346 '
ences here, not only in the area of antisocial behavior but in meeting all
major city problems.
I assume the President of the United States has expressed a like
concern as to the N ation's Capital being what most of us would want
it to be. Has the President had tlie opportunity to discuss crime in
the area with you ?
Mr. Wilson. In the District of Columbia ?
3Ir. Eangel. Right.
JSIr. Wilson. Yes, sir. On several occasions, as discussed earlier.
T^eginning in late 1969, there was no question the President had, as
I testified earlier this afternoon, established the reduction of crime in
the District of Columbia as really the first priority of the city govern-
ment for a couple of yeai's and still maintains it as a high priority and
still is very dissatisfied with the fact we have far more crime than we
should liave.
While we have been successful in substantially reducing the crime
rates since 1969, as I indicated earlier, we are still double the 1962
rate, and certainly that is a goal which I think Ave all would strive
to achieve. When M^e get to the 1962 level, we may be at a point where
we will have to sit back, I think, and question the priority then with
regard to ciiiuc. But at tlie point we are now, we are certainly not
at the ]ioint anyone can sit back and say the job is done.
But there is no question the President is interested in further reduc-
tions in crime and is going to insist the city government achieve further
reductions in crime before he will be satisfied with this situation. As
I judge his mood and the rest of the Nation, he sees crime as does
most of the citizenry of America, as a major urban problem that needs
to be dealt with. And while naturally there were some improvements
last year, certainl}' tlie Pi-esident sees that as just the slight improve-
ment on the top of a peak of crime which has to be reduced to a
level wliere people feel free ajrain.
I am very much concerned as I go around the city and see taxicabs
here and, of course it is true in other cities, you can't get change for
your money and you can't get on a bus without change and you ride
arouud Canitol Hill and see all sorts of homes with grilles on the
windoAvs. There is no question that we still — in this city and many
other American cities — have people living in fear and really have a
lo*^ of people imprisoned in their OAvn Avay.
Mr. IvANGEL. In describing not only this lo-block area we talked
■about, T Avould suppose it Avas your testimony in these general high-
crime areas, that you described them as being of high-density popula-
tio'.i. a high-POverty IcA-el. and ]n-obably unemployment. T assume that
if these conditions were alleviafed that it certainly might make your
job a lot better.
Mt-. Wtlson. Oh. there is no question that if it Avere possible to
alleviate the social causes of crime it would make the police problem a
irreat deal better. I am ahvays hesitant about saying that because, AA'hile
T believe it, I sometimes Avonder if — I don't Ava'nt to make the problem
so lar.q-e, that nothing gets done about anything and I think you can do
something about crime without saying that we have to deal Avith social
problems, first. Although I think it Avould be desirable to do that. I
think Ave need to do both.
]Mr. Rangel. But you do believe these factors are contributing
f actoi-s ?
347
Mr. Wilson. There is no question of it. You just absolutely cannot
deny they are contributing, and heavily contributing, factors.
Mr. Eangel. Does the President share your belief that these are
the factors that contribute heavily to crime?
Mr. Wilson. I frankly could not say. I don't know. I would assume
so but I, frankly, could not say that. I have not sat down with him and
discussed that with him, so I could not say that.
Mr. Eangel. In your conversations with the President — and believe
me, when privilege starts, you can let go — I am concerned
Mr. Wilson. I will liave to call the Attorney General on that.
Mr. Rangel. Call aiwbody else but him.
But I am concerned, recognizing the President's concern not only"
aljout the crime in the District of Colmnbia, but in all other major
cities, that when he deals with you it necessarily has to be as a pro-
fessional and he has to tell you what tools will be made available to you
if he expects appreciable change in terms of crime in the District. Ho
does ask you what are your problems and what tools do you need to deal
with them, for probably you have the same budgetary problems as
most ]Dolice chiefs in major cities. So my question is, if you believe that
your highest areas of crime are caused by certain social factors, re-
gardless of what they are, the tourist trade, demonstrators, whatever
it is, I assume the President would be concerned with that, too?
Mr. Wilson. I would assume so, Mr. Rangel. Although I think I
have to repeat, perhaps more emphatically, what I said before. While I
don't have any doubt in my mind that root social causes are what lead
to crime I am not one who believes that I would recommend we attack
root social causes as a way of eliminating crime because I, frankly,
think that root social causes are perhaps too complex a problem.
Mr. Rangel. Let's not talk about eliminating crime, because I am
convinced wealth certainly does not preclude one from committing
crime.
Mr. Wilson. I guess what we are really talking about is reducing
crime to a tolerable level, and I think we all recognize, even when we
talk about crime index offenses, that we are only talking about a very
small proportion of total crime, if you think of what crime is.
Mr. Rangel. If. in this political subdivision, there are certain fac-
tors which in your expert opinion contribute toward crime, certainly
your Department would be concerned about alleviating those condi-
tions and starting to attack the root causes of the crime ?
Mr. Wilson. I have not seen attacks on root causes whicli have had
substantial impact on crime. I am sure it is possible, but I, frankly, do
not see that. I do not feel we should — as has been suggested in the past —
do nothing about crime until we deal with the root causes. I don't
think so.
Mr. Rangel. I am sure I agree. I think you could say one way to
eliminate crime is to eliminate people, but we wouldn't suggest that.
Mr. Wilson. There is very little crime in the desert of Arizoiia.
Mr. Rangel. But, certainly, with j'our background and experience,
you recognize there are many things outside of the control of the police
department, directly, that certainly could make our job a heck of a
lot easier if other agencies were just as concerned about the things
they are supposed to do. If we are talking about any given demonstra-
tion day, certainly you have nothing to do about the buses that come
348
into the District of Columbia and yet tliat certainly makes your prob-
lems more difficult.
Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kangel. So you wouldn't have to really ban buses to say you
are doing your job, but you would consider this a factor and you
"would deal with it; you would do whatever you do in terms of assign-
ment of your men to deal with that problem. And recognizing that this
is the Nation's Capital and recognizing that you can find certain areas
which are measurably high-crime areas — in other words, I am willing
to do with you what I know New York City is not willing to tackle,
because we don't have the President as the mayor. If he wants to
eliminate, alleviate or reduce crime in the area, and you are able to
look at your crime charts — I assume you have charts measuring crimes
of violence and crimes against property by neighborhoods ?
Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rangel. You probably know o^•er the years just where you
have most of your major ])roblems. Now. the reasons that you have
given foi- these real i-ough areas have been poverty, unemployment, and
deprivation. I am not asking you to assume the responsibilities of the
Human Resources Administration, but I would just like to believe
that if the Chief Executive tells you to make this the type of city that
all Americans can be proud of, the factors that create crime are also
discussed.
Ml'. Wilson. Well, he didn't ask me to be the mayor; he only asked
me to be the chief of police. And I think from my point of view that
ci'ime can be reduced. In fact. I agree we have demonstrated crime can
be reduced with what has been done. T am not sui'e these other problems
are not being dealt with to some extent ; they certainly have not been
dealt with totally successfully. I don't think, insofar as I am aAvare of
the history of America, they have been dealt with successfully. That is,
in tei-ms of elimination of root causes.
Those are the things that need to be dealt with, l)ut I don't consider
them things that are priority items, from my point of view, to achieve
reduction in crime. I think crime can be reduced with or without elim-
ination of root causes. I think from a humanitarian point of view I
would perfer to see the root causes eliminated as well.
Mr. Rangel. I think if we do understand each other, your testimony
has been a little different from the police chiefs that we have heard
testify from New York City, from Indianapolis, from Chicago,
Avhere more and more they concei'n tb.emselves. not just with the man-
power and patrollijig the streets, but in dealing with the root causes
of criminal activity. Some of the ideas they had were absolutely amaz-
ing to me because of my biases against cities like Chicago, coming from
New York. All of their testimony this morning was not humanitarian
but in dealing witli high crime areas, they were talking about employ-
;'ing the person with the pi'opensity for crime, to have them involved
Avith law enforcement and other social services. They were talking
about people who looked like policemen being involved in lead poison-
ing and showing people where services are available so they could im-
prove the quality of their lives, so the frustrations they had would not
be taken, out against their fellow citizens or against the person wearing
the uniform.
I am certain they didn't hold themselves up to be the mayors of the
349
towns, but it just seems to me tliat they felt in communities such as this
15-block area in the District of Columbia, thej^ had to deal with peo-
ple and their problems in order to l^e effective in reducing the crime
rate. They were pretty proud of themselves when they achieved a
decrease.
Mr. Wilson. That is an interesting viewpoint. I don't really think
I share that, though.
Mr. Rangel. I don't suppose you are prepared to say the President
shares your professional opinion about this. I really ho])e he doesn't.
Mr. Wilson. I testified earlier I haven't discussed that with him so
I, frankly, can't say what his view is.
]Mr. Eangel. I don't want to prolong it because I don't really be-
lieve you have to be — you are not hired as — a humanitarian, but let's
assunie you are concerned about people, and certainly your record as
police chief would indicate that you have a concern. It just seems to
me that if you are in love with this city as much as most people
are, that in order for you to be effective in your professional area of
law enforcement, this would not be playing the mayor, you would
involve the unemployed or concern yourself with the problems
of the deprived and the poor.
Mr. Wilson. I don't think I said I was unconcerned about the
problems of the poor. I said I do not really see that as a viable ap-
l)roach from the ])oint of view of the chief of police to reduce crime.
I said those are things the city needs to do. but I did not say I need
to be doing it.
Mr. Rangel. These things would not be agreeable to you ? If some
program Avere developed in this area, so dense and so unemployed
and so poverty stricken, to have these people help themselves and
show they have the can-do spirit and they do become employed, would
you professionally f orsee a decrease in crime in this area ?
Mr. Wilson. I think so. I would have to see the program. As a
hypothetical answer, yes, certainly. I have testified that social im-
provement of the area undoubtedly would improve crime.
'Sir. Rangel. Wouldn't that be considered as good law enforce-
ment to suggest programs that would put people in a position
where they would not have this propensity to commit crimes, without
converting you into a social worker ? That would not detract from your
office as police chief ?
Mr. Wilson. I simply don't see that as my function in the orga-
nization of the government, Mr. Rangel.
]\Ir. Rangel. Even though it is a contributing factor to crime?
Mr. Wilson. Even though it is a contributing factor to crime. I
see education as a problem to crime, but I don't see taking over the
educational system as my function as chief of police. There are a
lot of contributing factors to crime, which
Mr. Rangel. I don't know. Chief. I assume the District of Columbia
still lias its narcotic addiction problem?
Mr. Wilson. It has substantially improved in recent times, and
it does have still a narcotic addiction problem. But it has substantial-
ly improved.
]\Ir. Rangel- And I would like to believe there must be a lot of
testimony given by you, on or otT-the-record, that educating cliildren
against the dangers of narcotics has been considered a part of your
official responsibility ?
350
Mr. Wilson. That is correct. No, I have not considered it as part
of my official responsibility, but I have certainly supported the nar-
cotic treatment agency and, to some, we have done some lecturing
in terms of narcotics.
Mr. Rangel. In your official capacity, I assume you support the
Narcotics Treatment Administration ?
Mr. Wilson. That is right.
Mr. R ANGEL. How do you jibe that as being within your official re-
sponsibility and not being able to concern yourself with
Mr. Wilson. I think you are misstating what I said. I did not say
I was not concerned with the problems.
Mr. Rangel. I mean officially.
Mr. Wilson. I said officially. I do not see it as my responsibility to
go up and talk with the President about employment in the high-
crime area as something I should do.
Mr. Rangel. I didn't mean to include the Presidency in all of my
questions to you.
Mr. Wilson. I am sorry ; that is the way they were coming to me.
Mr, Rangel. Then perhaps it was because I inisframed the ques-
tion. Then you do discuss the social ills of the community and the high-
crime rate with the Mayor ?
Mr. Wilson. Yes. Absolutely.
Mr. Rangel. And you are involved with programs to alleviate the
conditions that cause crime ?
Mr. Wilson. Involved, yes. I am not running programs to alleviate
conditions, aside from my police force.
Mr. Rangel. I assume in your conferences, as the police chief, you
would have to have some input, even though it had nothing to do
with patrol?
Mr. Wilson. Absolutely. I am sorry. I thought you were asking me
whether I had discussed it with the President.
Mr. Rangel. Now, let me go back to that.
Mr. Wilson. I am not going to, either.
Mr. Rangel. You have officially discussed the social ills of •
Mr. Wilson. I have discussed the social ills of that specific area
with the Mayor.
Mr. Rangel. In an official capacity ?
Mr. Wilson. Absolutely.
Mr. Rangel. As a measure of crime and lack of crime?
Mr. Wilson. And as it relates to the general area we were referring
to, as a matter of fact.
Mr. Rangel. This would be especially true in narcotic rehabilita-
tion, and seeing crime as it relates to the increase of narcotic addic-
tion you might be in a better position than a doctor or social worker
to give some advice regarding where clinics should be located or, cer-
tainly, where those who need the clinics are ?
Mr. Wilson. With regard to the general program, yes. I have not
discussed these m.atters with the President.
Mr. Rangel. Wlien he gives his mandate to you to decrease crime^
it seems to me he should have given it to the Mayor.
_Mr. Wilson. I am sure he has discussed crime reduction in the Dis-
trict of Columbia with the Mayor as well as with me. I, perhaps,
351
misled you. He has discussed it with the Mayor individually, with me
individually, and discussed it with both of us together.
Mr. Kangel. But he doesn't go to the causes of it. He just talks
about how he wants to see conditions improved 'i
]Mr. Wilson. Pie has not discussed the causes of crime with me.
That is what I have to say.
Mr. Rangel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Chief, following somewhat the line of question-
ing of Mr. Rangel, I Imow Mayor Washington is a man of com-
passion and concern for his fellowmen. He would like to see a lot of
conditions in the District of Columbia improved. I happened to own
some property in an area which has become a high crime area and that
property has very greatly decreased in value, and I suspect that same
thing has happened to a lot of other property owners all over the
District. I suspect the reason ISIayor Washington has not been able
to get improvement in this high crime area, of which Mr. Rangel was
speaking, is because he hasn't had the money to do it. And in these
hearings I am anxious to find out just where the responsibility really
lies.
If it lies on the failure of Congress to appropriate enough money
to clean up the ghettos, to put the people in decent housing, to try to
provide better schooling so the children will not be school dropouts, to
provide jobs, then the fault is not Chief Wilson's and his police depart-
ment, but the Congress or whoever it is who is responsible for provid-
ing revenue in that area.
I suspect that, basically, that is the problem all over the country.
Other chiefs of police would like very well to be able to have the high
ratio of police you have. A little revenue, I suppose, comes from the
Federal Government. ]Most of these other chiefs don't have that
strong source of revenue. And I suspect that, basically, the Con-
gress and the State legislatures, the municipal authorities, and the
people generally, have not yet owned up to being willing to pay the
piice of really bringing crime down to a minimum level, what you
miifht call a tolerable level.
To me, if we really determine to do it: this country is powerful
enough and rich enough and does have the know-how about it to
reduce crime down to a minimum level so that there will be relative
safety all over the country.
Would you care to make any comment on that ?
]Mr. Wilson. I think that is certainly true, Mr. Chairman. I think
crime can be reduced. While I agree with Congressman Rangel that
social problems need to be dealt with. I, frankly, just do not see that
priority on social problems as the way to reduce crime. I think that
crime can be reduced bv putting emphasis
Chairman Pepper. Not the only way ?
Mr. Wilson. I am not even sure it is a practical way. T think it
is probably a too-lonsr-term solution to he achievable in the situation
in which we currently find ourselves, where citizens across America
are very much afraid, and rightfully so, of crime and much more so
than they were 10 years ago. I think that crime can be reduced through
priorities to direct law enforcement programs, on increased police,
on r-ourt svstems. and there, of course, is a groat problem, as T gather,
in most of your urban areas, although I certainly don't have direct
352
knowledge of other urban areas, but I have the impression that many
urban areas have much the same problems we had in the District of
Columbia before court reorganization with diffuse court systems,
with badly backlogged court systems, with not bringing individuals
to trial, with so great a fallout of persons arrested that the law en-
forcement process is just practically unworkable. I think these sort
of things need to be dealt with on a priority basis. I think they can be.
'Now, concurrently, I think that it is certainly desirable from the
standpoint of achieving in America^ — we would all like to see problems
of poverty overcome. But we have had poverty for many years, for
centuries, and we did not have as much crime for centuries as we have
had in the last few years in this comitry.
Chairman Pepper. Chief, I think we all agree poverty is no excuse
or justification for the commission of crime. And, yet, if you walk
through the prisons of this country, as nearly all of us have done, you
will generally see something that I was told by one of the staff of this
committee, in the early days of this committee, that was gleaned from
some of the Presidential Commission reports, as to the type of person
in those prisons. And this is what that man said. He said that the
typical inmate of our penal institution is a white male, about 24 years
of age, a school dropout, unemployed, who previously had be«n in
prison.
Now, if that is even substantially true, that tells a lot about the
environment from which that man comes.
Now, I know it to be considerably true on your part, and no doubt
many would want to refute you for doing it, but if you were to go
before the school board or school authorities of the District, and say,
"Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you will not consider me an intruder
here in your council today, but the people of this area want crime
reduced. And one of the serious causes of crime in this area is seliool
dropouts. I could give you the figures, the figures that would sustain
that statement. I am not telling you how to run the school. I am just
telling you that I, as chief of police, have to deal with the problem of
these dro]^outs. They want things that others of their age and general
characteristics have ; they can't earn enough money ordinarily to buy
them; they dropped out of school way back in the Tth, Sth, 9th, lOtli
grade, along there somewhere. They don't have any skills, they are
headed to the juvenile court, and the juvenile judges have told us that
about half of those who get in juvenile court for a serious crime wind
up eventually in penal institutions."
I think you would be justified in making an appeal, as chief of police
not as an intruder to that school board. And if you went before the
chamber of commerce and said :
Gentlemen, I appreciate the confidence yon all extend to me. the encoiu'nge-
ment that you have given me. but as chief of police trying to do a job for you.
to save you and your family from harm in the District of Columbia, I want to
tell you some problems that might well need your attention, some social prob-
lems in our area.
As I said, probably a lot of them will say :
Chief Wilson better attend to his own business. We are running these things.
And yet you would be entirely justified as chief of police, trying to
help the people of the District to be safer. You would be entirely justi-
fied to try and encourage these people to do a lot of things that would
remove a lot of these factors from the environment.
353
Mr. WiLSOx. The problem is much more complex than that. While
it is iindoubt(Mily true— I accept it is true I cloivt know, but it is prob-
ably true— that a high proportion of persons in prison are school
dropouts, there are still an awful lot of school dropouts m America
who are not in prison and never commit a crime.
I think we have the unfortunate tendency of takhig an identihca-
tion stigma, if you will, of a person and saying that person is likely
to be a criminal because he is a school dropout or because he is black.
The Crime Commission pointed out in the District that most of the
persons arrested for crime were black. But, on the other hand, when
you start comparing, it is only about 2 percent of the population ar-
rested anyhow.
So it is a problem, I think, when you start saying being poor or be-
ing a school dropout or being deprived is a contributor to crime. Maybe
it is and maybe it isn't. It may come out the same personality that
makes the criminal has made the person drop out of school or has made
him poor in the first place. I am not sure, and sociologists have been
trying for about 165 years to define Avliat makes crime and have been
trying through all sorts of statistical processes to say these conditions
create crime, and they really have not been able to do it.
I think we know there are areas in the centers of cities, and the
cities generally, where most of the poor, most of these school dropouts,
and most of the social ills are, but there are a lot of people living in
these areas who never commit crimes and never become involved in
crimes; and. by far. that is the majority of those indi\dduals.
That is why I am afraid of going to root causes as a way of reduc-
ing crime.
It is much the same problem we had when we had a real epidemic
of narcotics in 1969. We found something on the order of 35 percent
of persons arrested for crime index oft'enses had used narcotics, on
the basis of some urine sampling we did in the central cellblock. That
tells us something but it doesn't tell us that to eliminate heroin is going
to eliminate that 35 percent, because it is a safe guess 25 percent of
those would have committed crimes whether using heroin or not. We
don't really know the percentage.
But tlie problem of attaching crime to root causes, in my judgment,
is tliat all of the persons wlio are suffering from root causes are not
committing crimes. I think it is a great mistake for us to say if we cure
po\'erty we are going to cure crime. I am not sure we can. I am not sure
about curing scliool dropouts. What we have done universally on these
school education problems, one theory holds that we have talvcn the
scliool dropout who used to quit school and go out and go to work some-
where, and kept him in school where he is unhappy and moved to cr-ime
in schools, and there is some indication of that in recent years.
^Ir. Raxgf.l. jNTr. Chairman ?
You are using some social work terms that I am familiar with. Ivoot
causes just sounds like if you eliminate that you have it made, and I
don't want to make that contention. But you can say that employment,
those youngsters Avho are employed, flo less mugging than those who
are unemployed. That wouldn't put you into difiicidty.
Mr. Wilson. I think you can say that.
]Mr. Raxoei.. I would say most drug addicts smoke pot, and you
could sav most drug addicts start off drinking milk.
354
]\Ir. Wilson. I am not going to say that.
Mr. Rangel. But if police chiefs can work with other people in
fittempting- to deal with the employment of the youth — I am not talk-
ing about giveawa}^ programs or putting a couple of dollars in their
pocket and having them idle, because it could very well be that even
with money in their pocket they would commit crime if they had
notliing to do with their time — it would not infiinge upon your pro-
fessionalism to say in areas where youngsters are employed, that you
would suspect that this is not the person that is most prone to physi-
ca 1 ly attack peop 1 e in the street ?
j^ir. Wir SON. I think that is true. But I would not invest any crime
prevention money in employment of youth, and I guess that is where
you and I probably disagree. Maybe we don't.
Mr. Rangel. I don't want any person in charge of any agency to
invest any of tliose funds from other peoples" work. T wouldn't ask
you to do it. With those police chiefs who have testified here, I think
it was made abundantly clear to us, those funds did come from otlier
sources even though they wrote the programs. They were the sponsors
of the j^trograms and they asked businessmen and other concerned
citizens to give a kid a job. I guess the District of Columbia Committee
will have to get together with you to ask your advice regarding some of
tlie proirrams that this Congress may be prepared to fund without
jeopardizing your budget. I hope _you can walk that one step with us
to begin to talk about some of the factors tliat underlie crime and not
the core, or the term you used, because I am not pi-epared to deal
witli that.
But if you did find as a T'esult of your statistical data that all of
those factors that contribute to crime, and if we would rely upon your
expertise as a criminologist and ask what can we do to help, certainly
we would not ask you to come with a program that would
Mr. Wilson. I am not a criminologist. I am a high school dropout.
Mr. Rangel. I am, too. So Ave should be able to use the same type of
language; one dropout should be able to understand another. You
kn.ow, if it was to surface, a lot of them survived.
My. Wilson. Me. too.
Mr. Rangel. I am suggesting people really don't have to volunteer
to go into the Army to avoid the temptation out on the streets. If you
could support the type of programs, in my community the Neighbor-
hood Youth Corps, and whether- or not you differ with Pat Murphy, I
could depend on him to suppoi't the application of Neighborhood
Youth Corps, the a]:)plication of neighborhood police stations, the
application of a whole lot of things that had nothing to do with in-
cren^od police manpoAver,or increased squad cars, and I am certain that
all of them atti'ibute an interest in these other programs as Ijeing partly
responsible for the decrease of crime in these areas. As a matter of fact,
I know vou probablv wouldn't suggest it, some of them even have
policemen trained in psychology to deal with that family that gets into
a fir.-ht every weekend.
Mr. Wilson. T am familiar with the progi'am. I don't think those
proo-rnms are viable for other reasons.
Mr. Rangel. I eathered you wouldn't. But a lot of chiefs do.
iMr. Wilson. For other reasons, I do not think they are practical. I
would predict those programs will not be existing 5 years from now.
355
Let me make that as a prediction. Ixh-uusc I don't think tliey are practi-
cal.
Mr. Raxgel. I just want to assure you of my political support on the
District of Columbia Committee to try to aive you the tools that you
need to Avorli Avith and reduce crime, and from time to time 1 may call
you to give me a little support on the social programs that you and I
agree could be a contributing factor to reducing criminal activity.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you. '
Chairman Pepper. Chief. I just want to ask you one other question.
I believe you said you didn't want any more police. If what we liave
now done, and what you have done, and what has been done in tlio
otlier areas tliat have to do with cuT'bing crime, has l)een responsil)le
for a deci-ease of 20.0 percent of serious crime in tlie District in 1072.
and I believe a decrease in otlier forms of crime, except for a 16-per-
cent increase in rapes, if wliat we have done has l3rought about nearly
a 27-percent decrease, why can't yvo. do some iuore and bring about a
5()-percent or 75-percen.t decrease in crime? You are aware, the peo})le
who dwell in the District of Columbia are still very much concerned
about the volume of serious and violent crime we have in the District.
Mr. "Wilson. Mr. Chairman, coming back essentially to what !Mr.
Ivang(>l is saying, it is a matter of priorities. There are other things
to be done in the District. I think one could argue for increasing the
police force even furthei-. One could argue even for maintaining our
authorization ceiling of 5.100 men, Avhich we are not doing. We are, as
I think I indicated eai-lier. down to a 4,050 ceiling as a budgetary
matter.
Chairman Pepper. How mucli did vou have at the maximum?
My. Wilson. 5,100.
Chainnan Pepper. You are down to 4.000?
Mr. Wilson. 4.000 now and our average ceiling for this fiscal v^ar
is 4.050. And, of course, this reflects a reduction. There are other
things that ha^-e to be done in this city. T guess that is what it amounts
to. And while we ai-e still maintaining a high })riority on crime reduc-
tion here, T think when we had a 25-percent reduction last year, when
we had a reduction during the first quarter of this vear on the order
of 10 ]»ercent. as T recall from the last quarter, and are projecting at
least a lO-percent reduction, this really makes sense to me.
Clsairman Pepper. If Ave ai-e willing to accejit a relatiA'ely small per-
centaire of decrease in crime, here you are telling us you have already
cut 200 men from your police force, from 5.100 to 4,000. In <iri>er
woi'ds, they have been Avilling to give you enough uiojiey to make the
progT-ess you have made, but they have not been willing to giA'e you
enough money to make substantially more progress than you have
made. Xoaa* you are beginning to reduce your personnel.
Mr. Wilson. I thinlc. Mv. Chairman, Ave still ha\-e a priority on
crime reduction. We haAC. as you stated, a 27-percent decrease last
year, doAvn from 2r)2 oflenses daily in 1060 to 85 a day in March. This
is better than lialf and it, frankly, seems to make sense to me, in terms
of the other pioblems of the city.
Chairman Pepper. Do you think Senator Stennis, whose life has
been in seriotis jeopardy and who has been out in Walter Reed Hospital
for over a month now, finds any solace in the fact that crime has de-
creased generally in the District of Columbia by 26 percent?
356
Mr. Wilson. No, Senator, I do not ; but if crime in the District of
Columbia is reduced to 15,000 offenses a year, wliich we had in 1962,
I still can't g-uaiuntee that you won't walk out on the sti-eet and get
shot by a holdup man. People were shot on the street in 1957 when
crime was at an all-time low. And it was no satisfaction to the man who
litei-ally had his eyes kicked out on Capitol Hill in 1957 that cnme
was then at an all-time low. But those kinds of incidents are not the
things by which I think we can sensibly measure crime and establish
l^riorities on the basis of. I am sorry to say that.
Chairman Pepper. With all of the things to do, and the decisions to
be made by the public authorities and the people, do Ave really Avant to
substantially get rid of crime as a priority, or do we just want to con-
sider that one of the major prioi-ities with which we deal, comparable
to building the subway, et cetera ?
Ml'. Wilson. I think in the District of Columbia it is still the major
priority. 1 understand that the desire of the President is that crime
in this city be reduced to the 1962 level, which means it has to be
reduced to about half again; and I think we aie on the road to doing
that.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you.
Mr. Winn ?
Mr. Winn. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Chief AYilson, I want to apologize for not being here for most of
your testimony. I have been checking with counsel to see if some of
the questions I had in mind were covered. One of them Avas on LEAA
fmids. I have been informed tluit you Avill submit for the record how
those funds Avero used and in Avhat amounts.
Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir.
[See letter received for the record, dated May 3, 1973, at the end
of Mr. Wilson's testimony.]
]Mr. Winn. I want to conmiend you for the 26- or 27-percent decrease,
It seems to be a trend around the Nation, though, that crime is drop-
ping, I think your record is very commendable and made under some
A'^ery trying circumstances.
Yesterday Ave Avei-e urged b}- one of the other police chiefs to take
the opportunity to lide in patrol cars. And, as you know, Avhen I
served on the District of Columlua Committee I Avas one of the mem-
bei'S of that connnittee that did accept an invitation from the police
chief at that time to ride in the cars and see the many problems your
patrolmen face.
Pet me ask a question that daAvned on me when I first came to
Congress in 1967. We had a Aery high rate of crime at that time in
the District of Columbia. Around the Capitol, itself, other than the
dome of the Capitol, Ave had a A'ery poor lighting system in this area.
I inquired and found out that — I don't mean to be stepping on any
toes, and I don't knoAv the exact name of the commission, but it has
got something to do Avitli the beautification of the Capital and the
Ca])itol, itself; in order that all of the buildings look beautiful at
niglit they light those, but the entii-e surrounding area is dark.
I think some of that opposition to additional lighting has been
OA-ercome, but at the same time aac had muggings and assaults and
things like that. As a matter of fact, tAvo people in my office Avere
assaulted Avhen Avalking to their cars in this area.
357
I wondered if this is the problem in other places in the city, that
they won't let them even approve additional lio:htin^ because they
want to keep it so beautiful ?
Mr. WiLsox. It is not a problem, INIr. Winn. We have instituted a
significant street-lighting program throughout most of the city, or
at least throughout the high-crime areas of the city. And perhaps
you notice that east of the Capitol Grounds themselves there is a
major program of lighting. In the early years we had some problems,
some objections, I think, from the Fine Arts Commission with regard
to Georgetown but that is some time ago, and it has not been a problem
in recent times.
Mr. Winn. Is additional lighting a deterrent to crime ?
Mr. Wilson. No question.
Mr. Winn. You have proven facts on it ?
Mr. Wilson. It is a deterrent to crime in any high crime area. Of
course, like many crime reduction programs, it loses its cost effective-
ness as you get into lower crime areas, but in any high crime area it is
certainly a deterrent to crime.
Mr. Winn. Chairman Pepper referred to Senator Stemiis. We cer-
tainly feel, all of us, badly about those circumstances. I want to point
out also that it is my understanding that a young man who worked on
the Hill until recently for Senator Vance Hartke was shot the other
night. Is that true ?
Mr. Wilson. I am not familiar with that.
Mr. Winn. There was an article carried in the Roll Call magazine.
I didn't get all of the details. If you are not familiar with the case,
we will skip it.
Mr. Wilson. I am not familiar with the incident.
Mr. Winn. But, as you say, you can't guarantee w^e won't walk out
of a restaurant tonight, lighted or poorly lighted, and have somebody
try to rob us or shoot us.
Mr. Wilson. We are never going to be able to guarantee that under
the best of circumstances.
I would hasten to add a lot of improvement can be achieved. We
still have far too much robbery in the city, as in most cities. But my
point is as a practical matter, we can't judge crime by spectacular
events.
Mr. Winn. In your opinion — this has possibly been asked by the
other members — how can we cut down on the number of people in the
District of Columbia that are carrying illegal weapons — gims?
]Mr. Wilson. I have recommended legislation for mandatory jail
sentences for persons carrying guns.
]Mr. Winn. Where do we put them ? We are loaded now.
]\Ir. Wilson. The population of the jail is down from its peak,
though.
Mr. Winn. You have got some room ?
Mr. Wilson. I don't advocate necessarily long sentences in the sense
of a year or two ; but our experience is that individuals who are arrested
for carrying guns in the District of Columbia virtually never get any
time in jail, any time at all. All we are recommending is 6 months
minimum — I would be happy with a 30-day minimum.
Mr. Winn. There used to be a joke on the District of Cyolumbia
Committee that they would check them when they were arrested for
358
carrying a gun; they check them in and write their name down on
the blotter and spank them and make them stand in the corner for
30 seconds and send them out the back door, because they didn't have
any place to put them.
If there is some room down there, maybe we ought to try to fill it
up with some of these guys, because they are the same ones shooting
Senator Stennis and whoever it might be tonight or the next night.
Did they ask you if you have a rape division ?
' ' Mr. Wilson. They did not. We do have a sex unit in our criminal
investigation, which primarily deals with rape.
Mr. Wtnn. Are women involved ?
Mr. Wilson. Yes. Women police officers are involved.
Mr. Winn. We had very interesting testimony from Lieutenant
Tucker of the New York City Police Department.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, she was on the "Today Show" the next
morning discussing the same thing she did with this committee; of
how she felt that the policemen in many cases lacked the sensitivity
to discuss the details with women that had been raped.
I was just wondering whether you had found this was a prol^lem,
because we read in the Washington papers about every other day a
rape occurs in Washington.
Mr. Wilson. They occur more frequently than every other day. It
is about two a day.
yiv. Winn. Tlie percentage of rapes is up ?
Mr. Wilson. The number of rapes is up, not from the peak, but it
is up substantially over the years. We find that it is useful to have
women to inteindew women, although our sex squad officers are pretty
good individuals in terms of interviewing. But I think there is a lot
of desirability to have women police officers doing that work.
]Mr. Winn. Have those officers in that division been trained, or are
they taking courses from psychiatrists, or anything like that?
Mr. Wilson. Not psychiatrists. We have a school we send the of-
ficers through for- both sex and homicide.
Mr. AViNN. What kind of training?
Mr. Wilson. Primarily investigative techniques, rather than psychi-
atric : not psycliiatric techniques.
Mr. Winn. Lieutenant Tucker tried to describe to the committee
some of the types of men that are raping Avomen. and we sort of got
into people with psychiatric problems.
Mr. Wilson. Well, that, I think, is probably a generalization. It
is typical that the rapist is probably a person with psychiatric
problems.
Mr. Winn. The Indianapolis police chief gave us, I thought, some
very good information, Mr. Chairman, on some precautionary plans
and programs. You might want to refer to the record and see what they
are doing; how they are trying to take cai-e of the rape problem in
Indianapolis by these programs, by watching certain individuals in
advance that they think are heading that way. They seem to have a
pretty good record of spotting these guys who are heading for trouble
because of certain patterns they follow.
Mr. Wilson. That is interesting.
Chairman Pepper. If my colleague would yield.
359
Mr. "Winn. Yes.
Chairman Pepper. I believe he said, the rapist starts as a prowler in
the neighborhood and then a peeping torn indicating proclivity toward
that sort of thing, and then some ladies' underwear is stolen from the
clothesline, just petty larceny, but it has some signihcance with respect
to that individual.
Mr. Winn. And indecent exposure.
Chairman Pepper. Indecent exposure would be another phase. When
a man begins to be involved in those things, I don't know just what you
could do about it. There is no way of preventing it that 1 know of, but
those are indicative signs that he might later on be involved in a rape.
Mv. Wilson. That is probably true. I am not sure how one identities
those symptoms from a police standpoint on a practical basis, because
with many of our rapists we learn of them only when they commit a
crime and are apprehended.
Mr. Winn. As I remember, he had a lot of help from the com-
mmiity and they worked very closely. Their street policemen work
very closely with the community and get a lot of tips in this direction.
I have no more questions.
Chairman Pepper. jNIr. Nolde, our chief counsel, has a few questions.
Mr. XoLDE. What is your position regarding legalization of
gambling?
Mr. Wilson. Well, I don't have a specific position on it. There is a
gambling commission which is supposed to issue a report within 2
years, I believe, which is to study the problem of gambling nationally
and come up with some comprehensive national program. I think it is
something that is going to have to be approached on a national basis
to aA^oid most cities, or areas, becoming centers for gambling.
I haven't really made a thorough examination of the problem. It is
a difficult problem to us and not a problem of high priority to tlie
police. It is a problem which is one of the gi'eat influences in corrupting
polic£^ officers. So, from a police point of view, it is something that cer-
tainly needs study ; but I don't have a position of my own.
Mr. NoLDE. I understand there was a recent survey of District of
Columbia police officers in which 88 percent favored legalization.
Mr. Wilson. I saw that reported in the paper. I am not surprised.
Mr. XoLDE. And I understood that, according to that report, you
had indicated that you would be in favor of a legal lottery in tlie
District, but you thought it would not greatly affect widespread il-
legal gambling.
Mr. Wilson. That was a clipping, an inaccurate report, from an
earlier inaccurate report, which was a question : "If the Mayor wanted
to have a legal lottery would I object," and I said, "no." I have no
role ; I am not an advocate for change.
My impression is, and again let me say my knowledge of what legal
lotteries have accomplished is sketchy, but my impression is govern-
ment-run lotteries have not eliminated the nongovernment lotteries
and, therefore, have not eliminated the police enforcement problem
or eliminated the problem of corruption of police. I have no strong
objection to a government-run lottery but I don't think that is an
answer to the pi-oblem from a police point of view. My imi)ression is
that those jurisdictions which have the lotteries still have the under-
ground numbers game which is able to better operate since they are
95-158— 73— pt. 1 24
360
private enterprise and are able to serve the customer much better and,
besides that, you don"t have to pay tax on your money.
Mr. NoLDE. It is reported that 80 percent of the officers believe that
present enforcement of gambling laws is uneven^ unfair, and mis-
directed. Wiy would they feel that way ?
Mr. Wii.soN. I frankly don't know. I don't recall what the ques-
tionnaire Avas and, of course, how the questionnaire was instructed
and what it says. I, frankly, don't know what would be the basis for
that, because within the District gambling is enforced against both
the numbers and against these spoi-ts- betting figures. We encourage en-
forcement of gambling against all levels, so I am not aware of any
substantial amount of commercialized gambling in the District of
Columbia. I am not aware of any gambling in the District going on.
I don't doubt there is some gambHng, which, incidentally, the U.S.
attorney won't prosecute anyhow, but I am not aware of any com-
mercial ffambline: going on in the District, not receiving enforcement
attention.
On a sketchy basis, quite frankly, gambling enforcement is not a
higli priority in the Department or in tlie District. It is something
we keep up on because it is a violation of law, it is widespread, and
it does finance other problems, such as narcotics.
Mr. XoLDE. Should there be any priority in terms of the so-called
victimless crimes, such as gambling and maybe some of the others?
Shouldn't we concentrate our police resources on curbing the more
violent types of crime, and free up some of the other areas which
account for substantial amounts of police effort?
Mr. Wilson. We do concentrate our efforts on other crimes. We
certainly aren't concentrating our efforts on gambling. The term of
what is victimless crime is subject to question. There is a commission
study of gambling, and I think it deserves study. I don't know what
it will be. I haven't studied it sufficiently in terms of what happens in
cases where there is gambling. There are a lot of myths, perhaps, about
gambling which I am not in a position to analyze and, frankly, inas-
much as this is a study appointed jointly by the President and Con-
gress, I have not seen it as something I thought I should undertake.
Mr. NoLDE. What I am getting at is, according to last year's total
arrest figures for the country, approximately 2 million arrests were for
so-called victimless crimes such as prostitution, gambling, marihuana
possession, drunkenness. And that is one-third of the 6 million arrests
made in the prior year. So, it would seem if we could reduce police effort
in this area, we might be able to better concentrate on the crimes that
are more bothersome to the public.
Mr. Wilson. Well, I would suppose of the 2 million arrests for so-
called victimless crimes, a large proportion were for drunkenness
Avhich is not a violation of law in the District of Columbia. And it
was for long a factor, a heavy factor, in the arrests in the District of
Columbia and certainly was lising resources unwisely. The problem is,
Avhen you talk about Victimless crimes you include in that narcotic
usei-s. INIany people use heroin, so heroin traffic is a victimless crime
and that is subject to some question.
Mr. NoLDE. I am not including hard drug traffic,
Mr. Wilson. Well, I am not sure that prostitution is a victimless
crime.
361
]Mr. XoLDE. Maybe the prostitute is the victim.
Mr. Wilson. It also is a heavy cause of robberies in areas that Mr.
Eangel an I were discussing. Prostitution is a heavy cause of robberies.
It is a cause of robberies in the sense that it attracts to tlio area a lot
of individuals who are targets for holdupmen.
Mr. NoLDE. It wouldn't necessarily be if it were legalized.
Mr. AViLsox. It may or may not. It depends on how one deals with it.
It is also a problem to the coinnnnuty. When I became chief of police —
and not lately, because we try to enforce the prostitution regulation,
as well as we can without the vagrancy statute — one of the most per-
sistent complaints I got in the central city was from people trying to
raise their families at 14th and W Streets, and they couldn't go to the
grocery store, the women couldn't, without being propositioned by
some individual who was up there looking for a prostitute. They are
raising their children in tliose areas. I am not sure I would charac-
terize prostitution in its present mode as a victimless crime. Perhaps
you can do what was done in France, prewar, and zone it. That may
i)e a way of doing it. In its present mode, I would not characterize it
as a victimless crime because, frankly, I think society is the victim.
Mr. NoLDE. Getting back to these crime statistics. I believe you have
agreed they can be manipulated. But. as you said in answer to the
skeptics, how could 100 crimes a day in the District simply disappear?
Tiiey just can't be hidden. What about the audit which found that over
l.OiiO tliefts of more than $50 were downgraded to under $50?
Mr. Wilson. You asked me about a report I haven't looked at in
(■) months, but my recollection is that the Ernst and Ernst report in-
dicated that OAcrall there were some faults in our preliminai"y report-
ing at the peak period. We underwent a nnijor reorganization of the
record system in 1969, and they estimated the crime reduction was
actually greater than we thought. It was one of the substantial find-
ings, that crime was higher in 1969 than Ave thought, and that it was
greater than we thought.
The devaluation of pioperty, of course, has been a persistent problem
since it was interjected as the measurement of what we were doing to
the ci-ime index in 1957, and the result of that is, beginning this year,
begimiing with the 19T;> data, all larcenies will be in the crime index
regardless of valuation of property. In the Distnct of Columbia,
wjiether you include all larcenies or exclude those under $50, the crime
reduction is still about 40 percent. The ])oints of variation are so
insignificant as not to be a matter of great concern.
Mr. NoLDE. You don't think that would indicate a problem in
reporting?
Mr. Wilson. No, I do not. It is indicative of a problem of reporting.
Valuation is a reporting problem. It is a problem because the victim
tends to overvaluate. It is a problem because the officer has no decent
guidelines, and you can't construct good guidelines. I don't think
it is indicative of a gross prol)lem. You run a survey of crime by
any mode and tliere is a reduction, no matter how you measure it.
Mr. NoLDE. What about the Pi-inceton study finding that the District
of Columbia policemen tend not to record crimes where they believe
they have little or no chance of solving them ?
Mr. Wilson. That was not what the Princeton study showed.
The Princeton study, I believe — if you are referring to the recent
one — was a criticism of the process by which we dispatch cars and not
362
requiring a report on every offense. This was one of the points made by
the Ernst & Ernst survey, that tine UCR guidelines literally requiie
the police, for every telephone call, to make a report and then find ap-
propriate evidence of a crime. There is no city in the United States of
any size, including the cities which are represented by members of
UCR committee, which follows that guideline, however. Maybe some
other study.
Mr. NoLDE. You don't think there is any tendency on the part of the
officers to not record crimes where they don't think they will be solved ?
Mr. Wilson. No. In this city, no ; I do not.
Mr. NoLDE. That was my understanding of the study.
Mr. Wilson. I am not familiar with that study.
■ Mr. NoLDE. Returning to the President's position on crime, did it
really help the cause of law enforcement when he held the well-pul>
licized White House Conference last year on police killings and failed
to invite Chief Patrick Murphy ? Do you think that helped ?
Mr. Wilson. Whether he invites Patrick Murphy to the White
House is not a concern of mine. I think the Conference on Police Kill-
ings helped law enforcement. I think the purpose of the meeting was
clearly to show, as the President has sliown several times during his
first administration and, obviously intends to show several times in
his second administration, he is concerned about crime in America, he
is concerned about achieving reduction in crime, and he is concerned
with assuring this support for police officers in America.
Mr. NoLDE. But when he fails to invite one of the most innovati\'e
and outstanding police chiefs in the country to such a conference, I
don't see how that could do anything but hurt the cause of law
enforcement.
Mr. Wilson. I didn't make up the guest list. I don't have to have
any executive privilege on that because I wasn't asked.
Mr. NoLDE. T'f^nlike the Watergate people. Thank you. Chief Wilson.
Chairman Pepper. Chief Wilson, we certainly do thank you and Mr.
Alprin for coming here today and giving us this very interesting and
very helpful testimony.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
[The following letter was received for the record :]
Government of the District of CoLtiMBiA.
Metropolitan Police Depaktment,
Washington, D.C., May 3, 1973.
Select Committee on Crime,
Cannon House Office BniUVmg,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Sir : In response to your request, attached i.s a listing of L.E.A.A. grants
awarded to the Metropolitan Police Department.
The daily average number of men on patrol was 664 during the 4 :00 p.m.
to midnight shift for the month of March 1970. This was the month during which
the department attained an actual strength of 4,100 police officers, and was during
the high-crime period.
I trust this information will be helpful to your Committee.
Sincerely,
Jerry V. Wilson, Chief of Police.
363
LEAA GRANTS
Fiscal year and title Grant No. Amount Status Expiration Type
Completed June 30, 1971 Discretionary.
1970:
Overtime, uniforms, and 70-DF-0455 $1, 239, 000
radios.
Overtime 736,000
Uniforms.... 214,531
Radios - 236, 750
Moneys returned 51,669 J „„.„,„ „«,„ „.
Update training curriculum.. . 70-A-151 135,000 Current June 30, 1973 O.C.J.P. & AJ
subgrant (70- 8).
Crime reduction ttirough NI-70-089 113,923 Completed May 1, 1972 Institute.
AuSated rwi time 71-A-051 24,000 do. June 30, 1971 O.C.J. P. & A.
subgrant (69-02).
1971-
Simulated model police dis- NA-71-090-G... 102,155 Current Feb. 28, 1973 Institute.
patch and control. „ „ , „ „ ,
Helicopter pilot training 71-A-251 54,320 Continued in O.C.J. P. & A.
' 1972. subgrant (71-19).
WALES-MILES interfaced... 71-A-251. 15,000 Current Aug. 30, 1973 O.C.J. P. & A.
subgrant (71-21).
Street to command center 71-A-251 37,500 Continued in O.C.J.P. & A.
TVptiasel. 1972. subgrant (71-11).
1972;
Organized crime intelligence 72-DF-ll-OOOl 157,660 Current May 14, 1973 Discretionary.
HeHcopter operations 3 72-A-lll 175,000 do. Mar. 31, 1973 O.C.J.P. & A. sub-
grant (72-07).
Command and control master 72-E-211 50,000 do July 24, 1973 O.C.J.P. & A. subgrant
plan. (72-18).
Audit of crime statistics 72-SS-99-€008 32, COO Completed Aug. 31, 1972 Institute.
1973-
Command and control plan... 73-A-311 49,500 Current Jan. 24, 1974 O.C.J.P. & A. subgrant
(73-33).
Street to command TV system, 73-A-311 46,500 do Nov. 30, 1973 O.C.J.P. & A. subgrant
phase II. (73-32).
Organized crime confidential 73-A-311 8,000 do Dec. 31, 1973 O.C.J.P. & A. subgrant
fund. (73-13).
Supplemental confidential 73-A-311 25,000 do do O.C.J.P. & A. subgrant
fund. (73-09).
Organized crime intelligence 130,000 Pending exten- do O.C.J.P. & A. sub-
unit, sion applica- grant.
tion.
Simulated model police dis- ! 71,078 Pending Jan. 31, 1974 Institute.
patch and control. continuation
application.
Pilot policeman— Portable 72,000 Pending. June 31, 1974 Discretionary.
digital communications sys-
tem.
' O.C.J.P. & A.— Office of Criminal Justice Plans and Analysis.
2 WALES— Washington Area Law Entoicement System. MILES— Maryland Interagency Law Enforcement System.
i $43,750 of this money came from fiscal year 1971 funds.
Chairman Pepper. The committee will meet tomorrow morning at
10 a.m., in room 311 of the Cannon House Office Building.
Let me state that the chief of police of Miami, whom we esteem
very highly, was to have been a witness today to tell what he has been
doiiig in Miami to reduce the rate of crime. Chief Garmire was una-
voidably prevented from being here this afternoon, but he sent up
a prepared statement which goes thoroughly into the procedures he
employs.
Without objection, I ask that the statement of Chief Garmire appear
in the record at this point in the hearing.
[Chief Garmire's prepared statement follows :]
Prepared Statement of Bernard L. G.vrmire, Chief of Police,
Police Department, MiAiii, Fla.
the high pressure sodium vapor street lighting PR0GR-\M in the city Of MIAMI
In 1971, on a visit to Washington. D.C.. Miami City Manager, M. L. Ree.se.
was greatly impressed with the effectiveness of their High Pressure Sodium
^'apor (HPSV) street lighting. Upon his return to Miami, he instructed that a
364
member of the City Department of Public Worlvs and a representative of the
Florida Power and Light Company visit Washington, D.C. to view the installa-
tion and get certain information from ofBcials there.
This investigation was made, and upon their return, it was agreed to install
a HPSV pilot lighting installation in Miami. The Public Works Department
was to be responsible for the implementation of the program with close liaison
wnth the Police Department. The Florida Power and Light Company would
incur all costs of Installation and maintenance, and the City of Miami would
utilize the lights on a lease basis. The decisions on installations were based
on discussions held between Public Works, Police, and Florida Power and
Light Company ; however, the l>rand of lighting to be used was determined by
the Florida Power and Light Company. The particular brand they chose was
General Electric, (brochures attached). Incidentally, there are several other
brands on the market : Westinghouse and Sylvania. to name two.
In order to place this lighting where it would be the greatest deterrent to
nighttime crime, police records of nighttime crime activities were used. The
intensity of nighttime Part I crime. (Murder, Rape, Robbery, Assaidts, Larceny,
and Auto Theft), was calculated for all areas of the City. This nighttime crime
intensity of nighttime Part I crime. (Murder, Rape, Robbery, Assaults, Larceny,
system.
Coincidentally, other programs were being initiated during this same time
period to combat the rising serious crimes. "Operation Impact" was a manp4)wer
allocation program which utilized all available personnel in the high crime areas
with Street Crime as its main objective. (Copy of "Operation Impact" attached).
For the HPSV pilot program, a one-third square mile high crime area was
selected in that portion of the City generally referred to as the "Garment Dis-
trict". This area consists mainly of warehou.ses and small manufacturing plants,
plus some residences. Installation took place during August, 1971, and police
deployment was changed to coincide with the installation. The existing lighting
had been 140 watt Mercury Vapor with an average spacing of 150 feet. This
lighting was rei)laced. one for one. using 400 watt HPSV in the commercial areas
and 2.10 watt HPSV in the residential areas. (Since then, the City has established
a standard of using the 400 watt lighting in both commercial and residential
areas.) HPSV lighting giA^es much more light per watt than does Mercur.v
Vapor. Therefore, the resulting light level was up to ten times the in-evious light
level.
Upon completion of the installation, nighttime evaluations were made, both
visual and instrumental. The comparison was startling. Vision was unobstructed
for blocks, and due in part to the high degree of reflection from the light colored
buildings, the lighting was virtually shadowless. The average light readings on
the street ranged from 3 to 5 foot-caudles.^ National standards for a well lighted
arterial street is 1 to 2 foot-candles, and % foot-candle for residential areas.
Four months after the installation of the pilot program and redeployment of
police personnel, a crime analysis revealed that nighttime Part I crime in the
Garment District was reduced by 48 percent. One year after installation. Part I
crimes maintained a 30 percent reduction. The lighting was regarded as some-
thing more than a success, and it was decided that the 400 watt High Pressure
Sodium Vapor light would be adopted into the City's standards to be used in high
crime areas, spacing, of course, being dependent upon the individual circum-
stances ; but except in very rare instances, spacing not to exceed 150 feet, so that
an average level of not less than 3 to 4 foot-candles can be achieved.
Plans were made for extension of the High Pressure Sodium Vapor lighting
into additional high crime areas. Discussions at the managerial level were held
between City and County. Dade County agreed to install such lighting on the
Metropolitan arterial streets within these areas, the lighting of such arterials
being a County responsibility. The City, of course, would light all the other
streets.
The City immediately undei'took a progi-am to extend the areas lighted with
this new high intensity lighting. To date, approximately 3,000 of these lights have
been installed and the installation of an additional 6,000 has been programmed.
This will include about one-third of the City. (It is presently anticipated that an
extension of this program will be carried into next year's budget. This will, of
course, be predicated upon decisions to be made by the Administration and
City Commission.)
1 Foot-candle : The illumination of a standard candle on a surface one foot away.
365
In addition to streets, the City has also extended this type of ligliting into the
City's parks in some of these critical areas. Bayfront Park, wliich is linatctl
in the downtown area, had HPSV lighting installed in March, 1972. Througli the
end of 1972, a satisfying reduction of 36 percent was maintained in crimes of
violence (Mni-der, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assaults). In addition to the street
ligliting program, the City has also taken steps to light potentially dangerous off-
street areas. This was in the form of an ordinance requiring all of£-street parking
areas to be lighted to a minimum intensity of one foot-candle (two foot-candles in
the Downtown Business District). A copy of this ordinance and descriptive
brochure are attached.
The City's present street lighting expenditures are at a rate of approximately
one and one-half million dollars (.i(l,500,000) or thirty seven thousand dollars
(.$37,000) per mile annually. Based upon its estimated population of 350,000 per-
sons, this equals about $4.25 per capita. This cost does not include the lighting
of arterial streets and expressways within the City which are administered and
financed at the County level. It is estimated that the cost of this lighting ap-
proaches an additional one-half million dollars ($500,000) annually.
Attachment. (1)
Attachment 1
Operation "Impact" — A Report Delivered Before the Commission of the
City of Miami at the Miami City Hall, Miami, Fla., on July 22, 1971
(Intensified Mobilization for Patrol Against the Crime Threat)
On July 14, 1971, you requested that I appear before you on July 22, 1971. and
present to you concrete proposals concerning the assignment of additional police
officers to the high-crime areas of the City of Miami. As a direct response to your
request, I am submitting a proposal entitled "Operation IMPACT."
Operation Impact can be summarized as follows :
1. 40 police personnel have been transferred from their regular units to the
Patrol and street duty.
2. 107 police personnel, as the result of extensive reassignments and transfers,
liave been allotted to supplemental units which will be deployed as a patrol
strike force against street crimes.^ The 107 police personnel are allocated as
follows :
(A) 30 police personnel are assigned to the three-wheel motorcycle supple-
mental unit. They will be the first group to experiment with the 10-hour a
day, 4 days a week schedule, often referred to as the "10 plan." The 10 plan
affords maximum coverage during peak hours of criminal activity.
(B) 14 ix)lice personnel will be assigned to 9 personalized beats to provide
intensive police patrol and presence in the most volatile high-crime locations.
(C) 56 police personnel will be assigned to the Tactical Operations Platoon
which will be targeted against street crime in 6 high-crime areas.
(D) 7 police personnel will serve as field inspectors to report on the prog-
ress and problems of Operation Impact.
3. 24 recruits will be used one day a week to personally contact merchants and
citizens in designated areas to solicit information on crime and report on prob-
lems in the area.
4. 6 areas of the community have been identified on the basis of crime statistics
to receive priority police attention : Allapattah, Central-Downtown Business Dis-
trict, Coconut Grove. Latin Area, Liberty City, and Little River-Edison Center.
5. Responsiveness will be the key principle in the assignment of supplemental
patrol units. Wherever the crime problem is the worst, that is where major
police emphasis will be placed.
6. Community Relations personnel will intensify their efforts to encourage
citizen reporting of crime, and then follow-up on the police response to those
reports.
7. Intei-nal Security personnel will increase their efforts to be available to
groups in the community to hear grievances, and to promptly investigate citizen
complaints.
S. The entire Police Department will l»e immediately placed on a virtual
emergency status concentrating its energies upon comJ)ating street crime.
9. Operation Impact is scheduled to begin Siuiday. July 25, 1971. and continue
for approximately 90 to 100 days. After that period of time the manpower prol)-
^ It must be remembered that clue to days off. vacation, illness, and in the fall the
opening of school, not all personnel will 1)p available all the time.
366
lems due to vacancies, vacations and military leave will have eased, and two
recruit classes will probably have been graduated.
Before I discuss the details of Operation Impact, I think it would be beneficial
to establish a perspective from which to view the Operation. Street crime is the
target of Operation Impact ; but, as you well know, the crime problem in Miami
is not a recent development. In fact, crime in Miami has been increasing dra-
matically during the past ten years.
Serious crimes, as depicted on the comparison chart, such as murder, robbery,
rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny over $50, and auto theft, have in-
creased "from 8,539 crimes in 1961 to 16,202 in 1966, and to 23,903 in 1970."
Crime, however, is but one aspect of the perspective against which Operation
Impact should be viewed. Other aspects are :
1. The police budget which increased from $5.36 million in 1961, to $6.34 million
in 1966. to $10.2 million in 1970.
2. The population of the City of Miami which increased from approximately
295.000 in 1961, to 316.000 in 1966, to 335,000 in 1970."
3. The number of sworn personnel — police officers — which increased from 619
in 1961, to 664 in 1966, to 719 in 1970.
A more startling picture is revealed if we compare these various aspects in the
more manageable terms of percentages. Population increase in the 10-year period
amounted to 13.5%. The number of police officers increased 16.2%. The police
budget, however, reflecting the factors of 100 more officers plus inflation and pay
raises, increased 89.4%. But. the increase in crime completely outstripped popu-
lation, police, and budget increases. Crime from 1961 through 1970 increased
180% ; or, 13 times as much as the population, 11 times that of the police strength,
and 2 times that of the police budget.
Although Miami has undergone a tremendous increase in crime since 1961,
this experience is not unique within the United States. As the United States
crime and population chart indicates, crime has increased 148% from 1960
through 1969 — the last year for which FBI crime statistics are available.* How-
ever, population increased only 13% ; or crime increased 11 times that of the
population increase. Therefore, Miami's experience is not unique ; in fact, it
parallels that of the Country at large because both the Nation and Miami
reflected a growth in crime 11 to 13 times that of the population growth.
Unfortunately, Miami is still contending with an increase in crime. During
the first three months of 1971, serious crimes increased 15% over the same period
in 1970. However, I think it only fair to note that :
1. As reported in the local press, the increase in serious crime in the unincor-
porated area of Dade County for the same three month period was 23% — half
again as much as the increase in Miami ; ^ hence the experience in the City of
Miami is not really an isolated phenomenon.
2. The increase in serious crime in Miami for the first six months of 1971 over
the same period in 1970, showed some signs of leveling off — the increase was only
7.2%^ — 12..5.54 serious crimes in 1971 ver.sus 11,685 serious crimes in 1970.
Admittedly, these statistics make for a rather somber view of the crime pic-
ture in Miami as well as the Nation. But, I believe it is essential that we have a
realistic grasp of the problem which confronts us, if we are to establish reason-
able expectations for what Operation Impact can accomplish. If we expect Opera-
tion Impact to result in a major decrease in crime, we may be deluding ourselves.
If, on the other hand, we expect Operation Impact to have a significant effect
upon crime — perhaps even a deceleration of the crime increase rate — then we
have a reasonable chance of having our expectations fulfilled.
If we harbor the illusion that the police can singlehandedly engage the crime
problem and overcome it, we are destined to hear not the cries of victory, but
instead the bitter recriminations of defeat. Crime is the product of a myriad of
social, economic, and political factors, and until the root causes of crime are
resolutely and effectively dealt with, our society will be driven by crime and its
attendant violence. In short, the police have been, and are now, only capable of
dealing with the symptoms of that social pathology known as crime ; they cannot
deal with the disease itself.
= See Appendix A for ten-year comparison chart of crime, police budget, sworn personnel,
and nopnlation.
- Source for 1970 population : U.S. Census Bureau. Source of population of other years :
Dnde Countv Planning Department Estimates.
* Spe .\pppndix B for the United States Crime and Fopulation Chart.
« Miami Herald, .Tuly 1, 1971, p. 2c.
367
Lest I be misunderstood, may I make one point very clear: I am not trying
to avoid my responsibility as a police administrator to address the problem of
crime and violence. I am, however, tiding to demonstrate that crime has been
sharply increasing in the past 10 years in Miami, and in the Nation.
In fact, I have discussed the rising crime rates in at least 10 major addresses
before various public forums. Furthermore, even though the police have been
given additional resources, they still have not been able to successfully cope with
crime and violence. Finally, I am trying to suggest, just as countless other police
administrators, appointed and elected officials, scholars, and citizens have sug-
gested, that the police alone cannot solve the crime problem of a community
or a Nation. Therefore, Operation Impact should be viewed as a temporary ex-
pedient— a stop-gap measure — to attack, as was pointed out two weeks ago, the
short range problems, while we are preparing middle and long range responses
to the crime threat. With this as a background, we now can proceed to discuss,
in detail, our plans.
Operation Impact, which will provide 40 additional men for street duty in
Patrol, is scheduled to commence Sunday, July 25, 1971. The operation will con-
tinue as an emergency measure for approximately the next 90 to 100 days. By
that time, hopefully, we will have graduated two recruit classes and placed 50
additional men on the street. We can then de-escalate from the emergency status
of Operation Impact.
Forty additional men, who are normally assigned to units and functions other
than street patrol, have been temporarily transferred to the Patrol Section to be
utilized in supplemental units to be specifically deployed against street crime —
robbery, assault, mugging, purse snatching, etc. These men (actually 38 men and
2 women), were freed for patrol duties at the expense of other units and to the
detriment of their effectiveness.
The personnel transfers are as follows :
From the Criminal Investigation Section with an actual strength of 107
sworn personnel, 20 go to street duty.
From the Community Relations Section with an actual strength of 18
sworn personnel, 8 go to street duty.
From the Resource Development Section (Planning, Training, Computer
Operations), with an actual strength of 17 sworn personnel, 7 go to street
duty.
From the Services Section with an actual strength of 4 sworn personnel,
2 go to street duty.
From the Office of the Chief of Police with an actual strength of 2 sworn
personnel, 1 goes to street duty.
And, 2 men are reassigned from the Patrol Office to street duty for a total
of 40 ijersonnel reassigned to street duty."
The Special Investigations Section did not provide any personnel for Operation
Impact because that Section has a major responsibility in the battle against
narcotic and vice activities. Not only will they continue their efforts to combat
this problem, but their efforts will be supplemented by some of the activities
planned for Operation Impact.
The Internal Review Section which is responsible for the inspection of police
operations and the investigation of citizen complaints, will expand its efforts in
these areas. Therefore, a reduction in manpower is not feasible.
The Traffic Section will have an even greater burden to bear because the over-
whelming demands placed upon Patrol to concentrate on street crime and answer
citizen calls for sei-vice. will curtail their efforts in traffic law enforcement. Hence,
a reduction in this Section is not feasible.
In addition to the personnel reassignments just discussed, internal adjustments
in the Patrol Section have been made to release men for assignment to supple-
mental units. The end result of these reassignments is the creation of a Patrol
Strike Force consisting of 4 supplemental units all of which will be targeted
against street crime.
Before we specifically discuss the individual supplemental units and their
responsibilities, it might be appropriate to describe the basic strategies upon
which these units will be deployed.
The first strategy is that the units will be deployed on the basis of need. The
need is determined by the kind and amount of crime that occurs by geographical
location in the community and the time of occurrence. In other words, deploy-
ment is the product of the volume of crime divided by time and location.
« For complete personnel statistics see Appendix C.
368
The second strategy is that the units will be target-oriented. That is, when
the units are deployed, eacli unit will be assigned targets or specific tasks which
they will be expected to work against. The target can be a known criminal, or
group.s of criminals, or a specific location where the incidence of crime is high,
or a set of circumstances or conditions which are conducive to or productive
of crime. An example of the target-oriented strategy could be a situation whei-ein
a gang of five armed robbers is known to operate in tlie northwest part of the
City. A team of otticers would be assigned to engage in constant surveillance,
stake-outs, patrol, and investigation of the gang until the robbers are appre-
hended in the act, tracked down after a robbery, or arrested for other crimes un-
covered in the investigations. In short, the target strategy is the assignment of
officers to a criminal target for the express purpose of legally eliminating it — -
period !
The third strategy is a logical product of the first two in that this strateg.v is
one of mobility and flexibility. Crime is not constant in terms of time and location.
The incidence of crime shifts from area to area, time to time. For two weeks
there may be a rash of robberies and muggings in one area. Then due to in-
creased police attention, or to other factors, the crime activit.v suddenly shifts
to another area. Obviously, the police must respond to these shifts in criminal
activity, or tliey will be standing in one place while crime occurs in another.
Because of this factor, it is extremely poor practice to jjermanently assign police
officers to a fixed post for a fixed period of time.
In connection with the point just discussed, the phenomenon of "crime dis-
placement" should be mentioned. It has often been noted that when the police
concentrate their resources in one area against a specific crime problem, the in-
cidence of crime in that area markedly decreases. But, very quickly, crime goes
lip in another area. The image, of course, is one of a checker board, with a series
of moves and countermoves by the police and the criminal element, with the
police too often being one move behind. Because the police do not have the
resoui'ces to occup.v all the squares, the problem merely shifts around on the
community checker board ; and, of course, the total crime activity continues to
increase.
The police could completely saturate one area of the community and suppress
its crime activity. But, due to the phenomenon of "crime displacement" it simpl.v
increases in another area much to the disma.v of the i-esidents of that area. Not
only does the second area suffer the ill effects of the displacement of crime from
the first area, but they have less police protection in the first instance l)ecause
men have been withdrawn from their area to saturate the first area. This simple
fact illustrates the futility — in fact, the gross unfairness — of favoring one area
of the communit.v over another. The only equitable distribution of manix»wer is
the proportioiuil allocation of available manpower according to need as reflected
by the crime statistics.
The fourth strategy is one of high police visibility and mobile pi'esence. This
is commonly referred to as the principle of police omnipresence. Fonuerly,
bec-ause of tactical considerations, the Tactical Operations Platoon often
woi'ked in plainclothes. During Operation Impact they will work in uniform,
as will neai-ly all the supplemental units. Even those few people who are left in
headquarters will, to the extent practicable, wear uniforms. The only persons
who will not be wearing uniforms while working on the streets in the supple-
mental units will be certain detective personnel who, according to Civil Service
regulations, cannot be required to wear uniforms.
It is anticipated that the high visibilit.v that results from the deliberate dis-
play of uniformed police will serve as a deterrent to crime and, even moi'e
importantly, provide a sense of security to the residents to counteract the climate
of fear which presentl.y exists. In short, this strat*>gy is simply an effort "to see
and be seen."
To this point, we have discussed: (1) the crime problem in Miami; (2) the
personnel resources that make up Operation Impact : and. (3) the basic strategies
by which Operation Impact will deploy those resources against street crimes.
I will now describe each unit involved in Oi>eration Impact to include its man-
power, schedule assignments, tactics, and missions.
TACTICAL OPERATIONS PLATOON
The Tactical Operations Platoon (TOP) is a completely target-oriented group
whose mission is to combat street crime through ari'est and aggressive i>atrol.
It is the hard-core, crime fighting team of the Department.
369
Tlie Tactical Operations Platoon will l)e increased from its present strength
of 36 to 5t) ; and it will l>e eomiwsed of 2 sections :
The first section will be comprised of live teams of 6 uniformed officers
plus a sergeant. The second section will be composed of 20 detective personnel
in plainclothes who will supplement the uniformed teams, and be especially
deployed to take advantage of the fiexibility and anonymity that plain-
clothes provide.
The Tactical Operations Platoon will be deployed in the high crime areas of the
I'ity which we previously identified as Allapattah, Central-Downtown Business
Di.strict. Coconut Grove, Latin Area, Liberty City, and Little River-Edison
•Center. Within these areas they will be targeted to specific subareas as the crime
problem dictates, e.g. Garment District. Central District. Coconut Grove Busi-
ness District, etc. They will be fiexiidy dei)loyed not only by location but by
time — one day they may work in the afternoon, the next day in the morning,
and the following day late in the evening. Generally, there will be one team in one
of the areas virtually every day. But, .should the need ari.se, three, four, or even
five teams, could be assigned to one area for two or three days to combat a
particularly severe problem. In short, the Tactical Oiieratious Platoon will be
where the crime occurs, when it occurs.
THBEE-WHEEIL MOTORCYCLES
Thirty men will be assigned to three-wheel motorcycjles to provide 20 hour
a day coverage. 7 days a week, to .specially selected target areas where there is
heavy pedestrian movement, numerous businesses, youth gangs, and a high
incidence of robberies and muggings. The three-wheel officer has the combined
advantages of being readily acfvs.sible to residents as well as being highly mobile.
The three-wheel motorcycle supplemental unit will be the first group to work
under a new work schedule — the 10 plan. The officers will work 10 hours a day,
4 days a week, and then be off 3 days. Other cities have experimented with this
schedule with generally favoral)le results. Not only does the officer benefit by
having a three-day weekend, but the Department benefits because the two 10 hour
shift.s a day will cover the period of greatest demand for police service — 10 :00
a.m. in the morning until 6 :00 a.m.. the next morning. The experience we gain
with the 10 plan diMng Operation Impact will assist us in determining if we
should expand this plan to include other units.
PERSONALIZED BEATS
Fourteen police officers will be assigned to 9 special beats, o of which are
walking beats. Because of the limited coverage walking officers can provide,
this form of patrol is exti-emely expensive. Therefore, the walking teams will
be assigned to the most critical points in the six areas we have previously iden-
tified—primarily those points where there are youth gangs operating, known
trouble spots siich as certain bars and pool halls, and generally a high density
of population and a high incidence of street crime. In short, the walking beat
provides a very intensive police coverage but in a very limited geographical area.
The personalized beats are so named because each man assigned will try to
establish a personal knowledge of the area and personal rapport with the resi-
dents and merchants along his beat, whether he is walking or riding in a car.
Supplementing the H two-man walking teams will be 3 one-man cars and 1 three-
wheel motorcycle. Although these men are mobile, they will be expected to park
their vehicles and spend a good deal of time contacting people.
REGULAR PATROL, PLATOONS A. B. AMD C
The Ijaslc patrol service for the City of Miami is provided by Platoons A, B,
and C, or as otherwise known, the patrol shifts. The basic patrol .shifts are:
Shift 1. 7 :00 a.m.. to 3 :00 p.m. ; Shift 2, 3 :00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m. ; and Shift 3,
11:00 p.m. to 7 :00 a.m.
The City is divided geographically into six sectors known as 10, 20, 30, 40, 50
and 60 Sectors as depicted on the Sector Chart." Each Sector is further sub-
divided into zones, each zone being covered by a ofie-man or a two-man car.
The number of sectors and their boundaries generally remain constant, whereas
the uumV)er of zones in each sector — usually 4 or 5 — changes according to shifts
ba«ed on the varying needs for police senice and protection.
Sf-e Appendix D for Sector and Zone Maps.
370
Tlie sectors and the zones within ttiem are not arbitrarily designed ; rather,
they are the result of extensive computations based on the amount of major
and minor crime activity, traffic problems, non-clriminal calls for police service,
population, business-residential characteristics, geographical size, major streets,
and physical barriers such as expressways and rivers, etc. Periodically, the zones
are redi-awn to reflect the physical and social changes that have occurred in
certain geographical areas.
The officers assigned to the zones ride in one or two-man cars depending upon
past experience with the areas in terms of the hazards confronting the offieer.s.
e.g. resistance to arrest, assaults upon officers, and high incidence of violent
crime.
The number of police officers assigned to a sector, as I previously stated, is
based on need. The two primary factors which predominate in the assessment
of the need are: (1) the incidence of drime : and. (2) the total citizen calls for
service. These calls may be either criminal or non-criminal in nature: e.g. a call
to respond to a robbery scene versus a call to assist a sick person. I might note
at this point that a 2~)% sample of all the calls for service in 1970, disclosed that
61% of the calls did NOT involve either .serious or minor crimes, i.e. they were
calls wherein a citizen wanted some kind of sei*vice not related to crime per se.
This, incidentally, is a conservative figure. Other studies in our City as well a?
other cities, indicate that up to 80, or even 90% of a police officer's lime is spent
in handling non-criminal matters.
The following table reflects the rank order of various areas of the City in terms
of actual crime and demand for services — citizen calls for police service : *
Sector and area
Central and downtown business district (40 sector)
Little River-Edison Center (20 sector)
Latin area (50 sector)
Coconut Grove area (60 sector)
Allapattah area (30 sector)
Liberty City area (10 sector)...
When the rankings are combined, the following order is established :
1. Central and Downtown Business District ( Sector 40) . '
2. Little River-Edison Center ( Sector 20).
3. Coconut Grove ( Sector 60) .
4. Liberty City ( Sector 10) .
5. Latin Area (Sector 50) .
6. Allapattah Area ( Sector 30) .
The resources of Operation Impact were cai-efully distributed to proportion-
ately meet the needs for police service according to available manpower. For
example, the patrol services, exclusive of the Tactical Operations Platoon which
moves from area to area, were so distributed that the Central and Downtown
Business District, which ranks first in need for police service, receives the most
police service ; and, Cocontvt Grove which ranks third, receives the third great-
est amount of police sei-vice. The assignment of personnel to other areas is also
closely proportionate to their needs for police service.
Finally, it should be noted that the regular patrol officer answers all calls
for police service. He is the generalist who is concerned with crime, traffic, and
non-criminal calls for sei-vice. Regular patrol is truly the backbone of any police
department. All other units are supplemental, which is precisely why we labeled
the Tactical Operations Platoon, three-wheel motorcycle officers, and the per-
sonalized beats as supplemental units. The supplemental units in this case are
more specialized in nature — target-oriented : and, it is these units which will
devote the majority of their time to combating street crime. The regular or
shift units, because of their other responsibilities, can spend only part of their
time on street crime.
The following material depicts the amount and kind of police service — regular
and supplemental — assigned to each sector by shift.
Rank order by
Rank order by
noncriniin^t
criminal calls
calls for
for service
service
1
1
2
4
3
5
4
3
5
6
6
2
8 Table is based on a 2.5% samplin?: of criminal anrl noncriminal calls for service for tiie
first six months of 1971. Statistics apply to the entire Sector.
371
10. SKCTOK
This Sf^ctor includes the area bounded by the City Limits on the North and
West, the Aiii)ort Expressway on tlie south, and the Xortli-South Expressway
(,1-95) on the east. Basic pati'ol coverage on all 3 Shifts will consist of 1
sergeant and 8 officers, with the officers being assigned to 4 two-man units.
Although there is a continual demand for police services in this area, it is
one of extremely high personal hazard to the officers, necessitating the assign-
ment of two men to each squad oar.
Beginning at 10 :00 a.m., 2 addition.il officers on three-wlieel motorcycles are
assigned in the Liberty City and Edison Center areas. These officers are de-
ployed along arterial streets where there is a heavy concentration of businesses
and pedestrian activity. The 2 three-wheel motorcycle beats will be continued
in the business areas and along the arterial streets until 6:00 a.m. (with a
personnel changeover at 8 :00 p.m. since these men will be working a 10-hour
day ) .
At 11 :00 a.m., 2 other officers report to the vicinity of N.W. 62nd Street
between 15th and 17th Avenues, which is considered to be the heart of Liberty
City and has l)een the scene of much street violence. This team, referi-ed to
as the personalized beat, is assigned according to particular problems which
are not amenable to other forms of patrol, such as gang activity which requires
constant surveillance and attention, llieir hours and actual area of assignment
will remain completely flexible to conform with the target. The personalized
heat will go off duty at 7 :00 p.m.
The area outlined in green — from N.W. 54th to 71st Streets and the North-
South Expressway to the West City Limits — ^is a target area for the Tactical
Operations Platoon, and will have 1 such team consisting of 1 sergeant and
6 men assigned varying houi's to combat street crime.
A 5th two-man car unit will be deployed during the 3 :00-ll :00 shift and assigned
to ride the seetor-at-large, acting as a back-up unit to the I'egnlar zone vehicles
or concentrating on a particular problem area as may be directed by the super-
visor. Beginning at 11 :00 p.m.. when manpower permits, we will continue the
use of the two-man unit at large.
10 SECTOR-SUPPLEMENTAL
Shift Regular 3 wheels
Mounted
Personalized
T.O.P.(as needed)
K-9
1 1 Sergeant and 8 men.. 2(10-3)
2 do 2(3-11)
3 do 2(11-6)
None
None
None
1- to 2-man team
(11-3).
1- to 2-man team
(3-7).
None
1 Sergeant and 6 men
do
do
1 man.
Do.
Do.
■ 1 more 2-man unit to ride sector at large, if ava
liable.
20 SECTOR
The Sector includes the area bounded by the City Limits on the north, the
North-South Expressway (1-95) on the west, N.W. 20th Street on the south,
and Biscay ne Bay on the east. Basic patrol coverage of all 3 shifts will consist
of 1 sergeant and 6 men, with 4 of the men being assigned to one-man units, and
the other 2 assigned to one car. This area is large and presents several police
problems calling for varied methods of deployment.
Beginning at 8 :00 a.m., a mounted officer is assigned to the Biscayne Shop-
ping Plaza area at Biscayne Boulevard and 79th Street to provide close atten-
tion to the high concentration of business and pedestrian activity. The mounted
"fficer continues on duty until 6 :00 p.m.
At 10:00 a.m., 3 more men are deployed riding three-wheel motorcycles — one
in the Little River Business District ; the second in the Edison High School and
Edison Park area ; and the third in the Garment District. The Three- Wheel
officer assigned in the Edison School and Park area is i-elieved at 8 :(K) p.m.,
while the other 2 three-wheel motorcycle beats in Little River and the Garment
District continue until 6 :00 a.m. (with a personnel changeover at 8 :00 p.m., since
these men will be working a 10 hour day. )
At 11 :00 a.m. one personalized beat team consisting of 2 officers, is added in
Little River to help combat th.i increased complaints of attacks against persons
and property. This beat continues until 7:00 i>.m.
372
Due to increased rol)l)eries and street crimes, a Tactical Operations Platoon
will also be working in tlie area from N.W. 36tli Street to the North City Limits.
Their hours will vary according to tlie situation.
Another two-man car unit will he deployed in this Sector during the 3 :00-ll :0<>
shift, when manpower permits. This unit will ride tlie Sector-at-large, acting as
a backup unit to the regular zone vehicles or concentrating on a particular prob-
lem area as directed by the supervisor.
20 SECTOR— SUPPLEMENTAL
Shift
Regular
3 wheels
Mounted Personalized
T.O. P. (as needed) K-9
1
2
3
1 sergeant and 6 men...
do.i
do-
3 (10-3)
2 (3-11)
1 (3-8)
2 (11-6)
1 (8-3) l-to2-manteam
(11 3).
1 (3-6) l-to2-manteam
(37).
None None ..
1 sergeant and 6 men. 1 man.
do Do.
do... Do.
' 1 more 2-man unit to ride sector-at-large, when available.
30 SECTOR
This Sector includes the area Itounded on the north by the Airport Expres.^way
and North City Limits, the West City Limits on the west, the Miami River on
the south, and the North-South Expressway (I-!»."») on the east. This is the
smallest subdivision of police deployment, and its boundaries present actual
physical barriers restricting the area of coverage. Basic patrol coverage on all 3
shifts will consist of 1 sergeant and 5 men, with 3 of the men being assigned
to (me-man units, and the other 2 assigned to one car in Zone 34 due to the high
hazard factor, and its nearness to the Central District. The Allapattah Busi-
ness District lies in the northern portion of tliis area, adjacent to the Airport
Expressway.
Beginning at S :00 a.m.. a mounted otRcer is assigned to the Allapattah busi-
ness district to provide further coverage of busines.ses and pedestrian activities.
He stays on duty until (i :0(i p.m.
At S :00 p.m., 1 three-wheel motorcycle otticer also reports to this Sector and
remains on duty until 6:00 a.m. to provide extra coverage for the protection of
property and against street crime attacks.
At 11 :00 a.m., a one-man personalized beat is also deployed to assist the zone
man with continuing prol)lems emanating from Jackson High School. This lieat
is continued until 7 :00 p.m.
Although there is no Tactical Operations Platoon assigned to this Sector, one
will be called in if conditions warrant such action.
30 SECTOR-SUPPLEMENTAL
Shift Regular 3 wheels Mounted Personalized T.O. P. (as needed) K-9
1 1 sergeant and 5 men... None 1(8-3) 1- to 1-man (11-3) Nonei 1 man.
2 do 1(8 11) 1(3-6) 1- to 1-man (3-7).. do.i Do.
3 do 1 (11-6) None None do.> Do.
' A tactical operations platoon will be sent to this sector if needed.
4 0 SECTOR
This Sector includes the area bounded on the n(n-th by N. W. 20th Street, on
the west by the North-South Expressway (1-95). on the south by the Miiuni
River, and on the east by Biscayne Bay. It encompasses the extremely populated
areas of the Central District and the Downtown Business area, and demands the
most police attention. Basic patrol coverage on all 3 Shifts will consist of 1 sfr-
geant and 10 men, with 1 extra man being added on Shift 3. Four men are as-
signed to one-man units, and 0 men are assigned to two-man units due to the
officer safety factor.
Beginning at 10:00 a.m.. 3 additional patrol lieats using three-wheel motor-
cycles are deployed — 2 in the downtown area and 1 between N. W. 8th Street and
11th Terrace from N. W. 2nd to 3rd Avenues. The two )>eats in the downtown
373
area are continued until 6:00 a.m. (witli a personnel changeover at 8:00 p.m.)
while the other three-wheel beat is relieved at 8 :00 p.m.
Also at 10 :00 a.m., a personalized beat con.^i.sting of 2 officers is employed as
previously described in 10 Sector. This beat continues until (j :00. At 10:00
p.m. a second personalized beat of 2 men will report to duty in tlie downtown
area to eliminate undesirable conditions which are amenable to preventative
patrol, in the area of E. Flagler Street, N. E. 1st and 2nd Streets, between 2nd
Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard, centering their activities on eliminating tlie
undesirable conditions around the bus station and YMCA. This team will re-
main on duty until 6 :00 a.m. the following mcn-ning.
Because of the high rate of attacks against persons and property, 2 Tactical
Operations Platoons are assigned to this Section — one to the Central District
and the other to the downtown business area. These squads represent 2 ser-
geants and 12 men working varying hours, remaining completely flexible to
criminal activity.
During Shift 1, there are a total of 15 police oflicers assigned to this area,
excluding supervisors and officers from specialized units such as point control,
solo motorcycles, accident investigation, and criminal investigators.
When manpower is available, an 8th two-man patrol unit is added to serve
the sector at large. Also an additional officer is assigned in Zone 44 on Shift 3.
because of the police hazards prevalent.
40 SECTOR-SUPPLEMENTAL
Shift Regular 3 wlieels Mounted Personalized T.O.P. (as needed) K-9
1 1 sergeant and 10 men . 3(10-3) None 1- to 2-man team (10- 2 sergeants and 12 1 man.
3). men.
2 do.i 1(3-8) None 1- to 2-man team (3- do Do.
2 (3-11) 6); 1- to 2-man
team (10-11).
3 1 sergeant and 11 2(11-6) None 1- to 2-man team (11- do Do.
men.2 6).
1 1 more 2-man unit to ride sector-at-large, when available.
: 1 more man added to sector 44 on shift 3.
50 SECTOR
This Sector includes the area bounded by the Miami River and the North City
Limits to their .ioining with S.W. 8th Street, the South City Limits and S.W. 8th
Street and the North South Expressway (1-95) on the east. Basic patrol cover-
age on all 3 Shifts will consist of 1 sergeant and 5 men, with all 5 men being as-
signed to individual cars.
A supplemental three-wheel motorcycle beat is deployed in a strip from the
liver west to 17th Avenue on Flagler and S.E. 1st Streets. This beat starts at
10 :00 a.m. and continues until 8 :00 p.m.
Beginning at 3:00 p.m.. an additional one-man personalized beat is also de-
ployed, and is continued until 11 :00 p.m.
It should be noted that although no Tactical Operations Platoon is designated
to this area, should the need dictate, one would be deployed.
50 SECTOR- SUPPLEMENTAL
Shift
Regular
3 wheels
Mounted
Personalized
T.O.P. (as needed)
K-9
1
2
3
1 sergeant and 5 men.__
do
do
1 (10-3)
1 (3-8)
None
None
None
None
None. -_
1- to 2-man unit (3-11)-
None
None >
do.'
do.i-
- 1 man.
Do.
. Do.
1 A tactical operations platoon will be sent to this sector should conditions warrant.
CO SECTOR
This Sector includes the area bounded by S. W. 8th Street and the Miami Kiver
on the north, the West City Limits, the Soutli City Limits, and Biscayne Bay.
Basic patrol coverage on all 3 Shifts will consist of 1 sergeant and 0 men during
Shift 1, and 1 sergeant and 7 men during Sliifts 2 and 3. During the first shift,
374
4 men are assigned to individual units, with 1 two-man unit. During the other
two shifts, there are 3 one-man units, and 2 units of two men each.
Beginning at 8 :00 a.m., a mounted beat is also added to supplement coverage
in the park area and along Main Highway in Coconut Grove, and continues
until 6 :00 p.m.
At 10 :00 a.m., 2 additional beats are deployed in the Coconut Grove area using
the three-wheel motorcycles. These 2 beats are continued until 6:00 a.m. the
following morning, (with a personnel changeover at 8 :00 p.m. )
Starting at 4 :00 p.m., one personalized beat consisting of 2 men is also added
to maintain further coverage in the residential area of Coconut Grove. This is
continued until midnight.
Target areas have always been identified within the 60 Sector and a Tactical
Operations Platoon has been deployed in this Sector on a "when and where
needed" basis. The deployment will continue.
Minimum police covex-age on a 24-hour basis consists of 1 sergeant and 9 men,
with the number being increased at certain times of the day and night. When
manpower is available, one more two-man patrol unit is added to serve the
sector-at-large, on the second shift.
60 SECTOR-SUPPLEMENTAL
Shift Regular 3 wheels Mounted Personalized T.O.P. (as needed) K-9
1 1 sergeant and 6 men... 2 (10-3) 1 (8-3) None 1 sergeant and 6 men. 1 man.
2 lsetgeantand7meni.. 2(3-11) 1(3-6) 1- to 2-man team (4-11) .do Do.
3 do.... 2(11-6) None 1- to 2-man team (U- do Do.
12).
' 1 more 2-man unit to ride the sector-at-large, when available.
FIELD INSPECTION TEAM
It is obvious. I believe, that Operation Impact is a complex program which
requires close coordination, effective supervision, and above all, good com-
munications if it is to succeed. Communications will be necessary not only
among all the units in the Department, but also between the community and
the police. Therefore, a field inspection unit of 6 sergeants and 1 lieutenant
will be given an inspection and communications assignment. One sergeant will
be assigned to each Sector, and particularly to the target areas within each
Sector.
The field inspectors will be in the field to observe the progress and problems
of Operation Impact and to report their findings to the shift commander and
Patrol commander and thence to me. Additionally, they will seek out merchants
and residents in the area to solicit their assistance in identifying crime problems
in the area, and to obtain grass roots evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses
of Operation Impact.
The field inspectors should provide a valuable link both between headquarters
and the line personnel, and between the citizens in the community and head-
, quarters. The development of such a linkage should prove invaluable in keeping
the administrative staff in tune with what is really happening. Too often, because
of the tendency toward isolation, the administrative staff believes a program
to be functioning well when in reality, as any resident or merchant could tell
them, it is not. This is one pitfall we must avoid if Operation Impact is to be
successful.
At this juncture, I have described in detail how the patrol f(n-ce has been
supplemented, assigned, and deployed to combat crime and violence in the
streets. But, other units in the Department will also play a role.
THE TRAINING UNIT
The police academy will deploy 24 recruits one day a week into various areas
of the community in a combined training and citizen contact program. The
recruits, in their khald uniforms but without weapons, and supervised by the
academy staff, will walk the streets of the various neighborhoods in the com-
munity— Black, Anglo, and Latin. We anticipate that the program will be 1
beneficial for both the recruits and the citizens because :
375
1. They will communicate with each other on a face-to-face basis. The com-
munity will get a first hand look at the caliber of men who are striving to
become police officers ; and, the recruits will come to know the citizens whose
rights, lives, and property they are destined to protect.
2. The recruits will be able to provide some basic information to the citizens
about the police department ; but, more importantly, the residents and merchants
will be able to tell the recruits what they expect of the police, the crime problems
they are facing, and the services they need. Each recruit will be required to
report on which he has learned, and on the requests for sers'ice he has received.
3. The recruits will actively seek to identify young men who may themselves
wish to become police officers. Who better could tell a young man what it is
like to be a police recruit, and why he should choose to become a police officer,
than a recruit himself. Given the number of police vacancies, and the difficulty
in attracting qualified men to join the Miami Police Department, our recruits
could indeed provide a valuable service by assisting in the recruitment effort.
4. The recruits will provide a valuable addition to our efforts to create and
maintain a high-visibility police presence.
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION SECTION
Even though the Criminal Investigation Section provided 20 personnel for
Operation Impact, they will still be asked through the Criminal Information
Center to provide additional assistance. This unit will be expected to act as a
clearing house and an analysis unit for the information generated by Operation
Impact. The Criminal ^formation Center will also have the responsibility of
identifying the targets against which the patrol supplemental units will be di-
rected. In essence, this unit will be the nerve center of Operation Impact.
COMMUNITY EEIATIONS SECTION
Community Relations personnel will emphasize those programs which en-
courage citizen reporting of crime and identification of criminal suspects. They
will be particularly concerned with disseminating information on Operation
Impact so that people in the community will know how they can assist us in the
campaign against street crime.
INTERNAL REVIEW SECTION
Internal Review personnel will increase their availability to those in the com-
munity who have grievances and complaints ; hence adopting an activist policy
in seeking out problems and deficiencies. Internal Review personnel are riding
in the field now to observe and inspect ; and, within manpower limitations, they
will expand their efforts in this area.
With regard to citizen complaints, may I state again that the policy of the
Miami Police Department is to investigate citizen complaints ; and, if they are
substantiated, the appropriate action will be taken and the results relayed to
them. However, both citizens of the community and Miami police officers must
know that if the complaints are not leased in fact the officers will be exonerated
and the Department will stand behind them.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS SECTION
This Section has a major, but not exclu.sive. responsibility for the suppression
of vice and the apprehension of the purveyors of vice ; and, it has done an out-
standing job in terms of its responsibility. I can say without fear of contradic-
tion that never before in the history of the Miami Police Department has there
been such a sustained, intense campaign against vice. The following table of
statistics provides an indication of the commitment of the men and women of
this unit to their job ; furthermore, these officers can be counted among those
95-158 O— 73— pt. 1 25
190
140
181
82
159
284
54
65
101
114
195
362
376
personnel in the department who ask — not what they have to do, but instead what
can they -do :
1968 1969 1970
Prostitution 84 110 145
Liquor.
Narcotics
Gambling
Miscellaneous
Total.. 524 669 1,073
These statistics reflect a tremendous increase in total vice arrests : 524 ar-
rests in 1968 versus 1,073 arrests in 1970, an increase of 549 arrests or a jump of
105% ! With respect to prostitution, the increase from 1968 to 1970 was 73%.
During the first six months of 1971, the number of arrests for prostitution has
continued to increase.
Operation Impact will definitely be concerned with the suppression of street
vice. Special efforts will be directed against vice, ijarticularly prostitution. Ad-
ditionally, it is my oflBcial policy that the patrol oflicer is responsible for the
suppression of liquor, gambling, drugs and prostitution activities — in his area
of patrol. Vice is not something to be left to the vice unit any more than rob-
bery is to be left to the robbery unit. To the extent that it is practicable, the
patrol officer will enforce the laws against vice just as he enforces other laws
in his area. Any actions short of this, I will not tolerate.
To summarize, may I offer a simple description of Oi>eration Impact: Total
mobilization of police resources to attack one problem — crime in the streets.
All else will be secondary.
May I further note in summary of this presentation, that we the members
of the Miami Police Department have earnestly attempted to respond, as one
of you requested, not with 'problems but with solutions. Whether or not our
proposal — Operation Impact — is truly a solution .simply remains to be seen.
Furthennore, whetlier or not our program appears to be succeeding or fail-
ing, I will insist upon compliance with certain ix)licies:
1. We shall proceed within the limits of the laws Avhich we are emiwwered
to enforce, and within the limits of our authority as it relates to the con-
stitutional rights of persons.
2. We shall proceed not through the intentional use of force and violence but
through the intentional use of lawful authority to perform our mission. When
force or violence must be employed, it shall be employed, but only as a last
resort, and only to tlie minimum extent necessary.
3. We shall proceed not against whites or blacks, but against persons who
have violated the law. What matters is not their color, only their conduct.
377
Appendix A
TEN YEAR COMPARISON
RESOURCES. POPULATION.
OF POLICE
a CRIME
iij
<
UJ
O
o
UJ
o
leo
175
170
165
160
155
150
145
140
135
130
125
120
I 15
I 10
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
IS
10
5
0
20,723
•j.irs.sb.
19 ex
■Jtr
6.385.784
" '■'•J*.6^97. 140
~ ■-*'|50% a 7% CS-~/698 ij'si.
,o. ,,.£= 6.163,535 520. 4M .• ••.:
79^/668 7ni>6C.i , i ./C64 ^ ^— .-. • - •-• •9~
,.-^*^?^'' . — "^ 72%/3r«.2<
9.6M.I.I
■ 9.S5t
-^ - 1079% II 9%
7 3'.,/66-1 329.7.5 526. K5
/ 306, 5?9
89 4 »
11,152.337
16 2% / 719
MS. 9%
594. ».
YEAR 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1963 1967 1966 1969 1970
BASE YEAR: 1961
BASE POPULATION: 294.903
BASE SWORN PERSONNEL : 619
BASE BUDGET : 5.359.347
BASE CRIME : 8.539
INDEX CRIME
POLICE BUDGET
SWORN PbRSONNEL
POPULATION
378
Appendix B
CRIME AND POPULATION
I9 60 - 19 69
+ 150
■I- 140
+ 130
•t- 120
+ no
+ 100
+ 90
+ 80
+ 70
f 60
+ 50 >
+ 40
+ 30
+ 20
+ 10
PERCENT CHANGE OVER I960
I I
/I POPULATION
UP I 3 %
l>il^(~ l'->l-l
l;'lit- 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 l;169
CKIML CRIME INDEX OFFENSES
379
APPENDIX "C"
MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT SWORN PERSONNEL DISTRIBUTION
Pro- Plus or
Section and ranks Budgeted Actual posed minus
Office of chief (1 sergeant) - 2
Community relations (1 lieutenant, 1 sergeant, 6 police officers) 24
Special investigations 34
Internal review 11
Assistant chief of administration 2
Resource development (4 sergeants, 3 police officers) 16
Services (1 lieutenant, 1 sergeant) 4
Assistant chief of operations - 3
Cilminal investigation (1 captain, 1 lieutenant, 17 sergeants, 1 P.W 120
Traffic - --- --- 89
Patrol -- - MU
2
1
-1
18
10
-8
33
33
0
9
9
0
1
1
0
17
10
-7
4
2
-2
2
2
0
107
87
-20
78
78
0
379
417
+38
650
650 ...
Total -- - - 719
1 This chart reflects movement of sworn personnel to implement "Operation Impact."
2 The administrative office of patrol will assign two officers from staff duties to street duties. Therefore, in reality 40
additional officers will be on the street.
3 The 69 man difference between actual strength and budgeted strength is accounted for by 24 recruits in the academy
plus 45 vacancies.
380
DEPARTMENT OF POLICE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
ZONE a SECTOR MAP
APPENDIX "D"
SECTOR
50
CONTIN-
UATION
ON
INSET
ETIAN CSWV.
MAC ARTHUR CSMT.
Chairman Pepper. The committee will adjourn until 10 o'clock
tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 4:36 p.m., the hearing adjourned to reconvene
Thursday, April 12, 1973, at 10 a.m.)
STREET CRIME IN AMERICA
(The Police Response)
THUBSDAY, APBIL 12, 1973
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on Crime,
Washington^ D.G.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :10 a.m., in room 311,
Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Claude Pepper (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Representatives Pepper, Rangel, Steiger, Winn, and
Keating. Representative John Conyers, Jr., of Michigan was an invited
guest and sat with the committee.
Also present: Chris Nolde, chief counsel; Richard Lynch, deputy
chief counsel ; and Leroy Bedell, hearings officer.
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
Continuing our week-long series of hearings on law enforcement
programs designed to reduce street crime, we will be hearing today
from the Detroit Police Department regarding its felony prevention
unit which has attracted a great deal of comment.
I will ask one of our distinguished colleagues in the House, whom we
have invited to sit with us today, an able Member from the Detroit
area of the House of Representatives, the Honorable John Conyers,
if he will be good enough to present the next witness.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR., A XJ.S. REPRESENTATIVE
EROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a double honor for me to be permitted to join the Select
Committee for the purpose of these hearings this morning and, of
course, I am very pleased to introduce the commissioner of police of
the city of Detroit, Commissioner John F. Nichols.
The commissioner is known among law enforcement officers as a
policeman's policeman. He has served his entire career in the Detroit
Police Department. He has worked on a variety of assignments, and
he has now, through dint of perseverance, moved to the top of the
Detroit Police Department.
As we know, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the
job of law enforcement in this Nation, particularly our urban areas,
is one of the most trying and demanding challenges that any govern-
ment official might meet with. I think it is entirely appropriate, based
upon the subject that is the concern of this committee, that Commis-
sioner Nichols of Detroit be a witness here this morning.
(381)
382
So I am very pleased and privileged to present him to you and to
the committee.
Chairman Pepper. We are very pleased to have you, Commissioner.
The deputy chief counsel, Mr. Lynch, will proceed.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Commissioner, I wonder if you could please intro-
duce to the committee the other members of the panel ?
STATEMENT OE JOHN F. NICHOLS, COMMISSIONER, POLICE DEPART-
MENT, DETROIT, MICH., ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES BANNON,
STRESS UNIT COMMANDER; RONALD H. MARTIN, PATROLMAN;
AND JOHN P. RICCI, PATROLMAN
Mr. Nichols. Yes, sir ; I would.
Gentlemen of Congress, on my right is Comdr. James Bannon, on
his left is Patrolman Konald H. Martin, and on his left is Patrolman
John P. Ricci.
Conunander Bannon is one of the cocommanders of the STRESS
unit; both Patrolman Martin and Patrolman Ricci are active mem-
bers of the STRESS unit at the present time.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Commissioner, if you have a prepared statement,
would you please present it at this time.
Mr. Nichols. Yes, sir ; I do, and I shall.
To begin with STRESS is an acronym which represents the theme:
"Stop the Robberies, Enjoy Safe Streets." In one sense it was a totally
new development within our department, a^id from another aspect it
was an evolvement from an existing concept. Historically, its birth
actually ensued in March 1967, when we created a small unit of a uni-
formed patrol which was intended to oope with a rash of delivery
truck robberies we were experiencing, as well as other robberies.
Their principal mode of operation was the surveillance of possible
victims and suspects. This unit was selectively assigned to problem
areas and met with some degree of success. They were also used to sup-
port precinct personnel when calls for service reached levels above the
precinct's capability. But, unlike the regular patrol units, these men
could also conduct more extensive preliminary investigations follow-
ing a crime. Ultimately, precinct support became one of the primary
objectives, and the unit was renamed "precinct support unit."
By 1968, crime in Detroit, like in most cities, was on the increase
at an acute pace, an accelerating pace. From 1968 to^ 1970, major
crimes in the city increased some 32 percent, but robberies had in-
creased by a monstrous 67 percent. And out of 23,000 robberies during
1970, nearly 18,000 of them occurred on the streets. More brutal was
the fact that 85 people were murdered at the hands of robbers in that
single year.
Almost immediately following my appointment, my staff studied
the problem of street crime to attempt to find some reasonable answers.
An analysis of the facts revealed many interesting aspects which we
used to construct a profile of the typical robbery incident.
We found that the victim was usually male, not young, nonwhite,
and living in or near the neighborhood in which the robbery took
place. The criminal was usually young, nonwhite, and armed. One fac-
tor was salient, however, in contrast to what one would believe most
robberies were not being carried out covertly. They occurred openly
383
and in full view of other citizens and potential witnesses on the
street.
It was apparent that the criminal felt safe in carrying out his act in
front of others. He obviously believed that large segments of the
community were either so apathetic or intimidated that they would not
interfere. His only concern then was to assure himself that there were
no police in the area. If a robber sees a potential victim, he can make
an instant decision whether or not to act. If a policeman or a police
car is near, he simply waits for a more opportune moment.
If he thinks it is safe, it takes him but a few seconds to commit his
act and flee the immediate area. More often than not his intended
victim is aged, intoxicated, or a woman — ^those least likely to offer re-
sistance. Those who are confused, shocked, and fearful, if not hurt,
would be least likely to identify and prosecute.
What was needed, then, was obviously a method to have police
personnel on the scene of the crime as it was happening. Wliile the
presence of uniformed policemen simply caused the thugs to move
elsewhere, the presence of other citizens, however, did not seem to deter
them.
In retrospect, the answer seems too obvious, a zero visibility patrol.
The concept of placing nonuniformed personnel on the street as if
they belonged there, letting them dress in street clothes, placing them
in unmarked old cars, new cars, on buses, in taxicabs, in delivery
trucks, campers, bicycles, and on foot; let the police personnel blend
into the neighborhood and become part of it.
The basic premise is obviously not new. The whole concept of plain-
clothes officers is not new, but never on a large scale had we attempted
to perfectly blend men into the environment.
With this concept in mind a pattern of operation was set up using
the computer data regarding times, locations; the unit was expected
to be responsible. And the plan became operational in January 1971,
using the precinct support unit. During those first few days some of
the men had a hard time adjusting to their new role. At the end of
one shift a delegation of policemen who had been dressed as women
approached Commander Bannon and told him, "Inspector, no one tried
to rob us today, but we got six lewd proposals." They were viewed not
as ])otential victims, but as hookers, hustlers, or to be more genteel,
"ladies of the evening."
After becoming more accustomed to the new roles, however, the unit
soon started showing results. In addition to arrests for robbery, the
men were making arrests for burglary, car theft, rape, murder, and
arson. They obviously were successful in assuming the appearance
of neighborhood citizens.
STRESS crews operate in vandng numbers and in varying pat-
terns. Geograpliically, a crew may be assigned to an area covering
two to four precincts. While the normal precinct cars are patrolling
their scout oar territories, the STRESS plainclothes officers in un-
marked vehicles are checking the specific streets in neighborhoods
showing a high current rate of crime.
Depending on street activity — observation of the number of kinds
of individuals on the street in a neighborhood at a given time — the
STRESS crew may decide to "drop off a target"; that is, place one
of its members on foot in the street situation. Cover is provided by
384
other members of the crew either on foot, in vehicles, or a combination
thereof.
Incidentally, there have been instances in which the covering offi-
cers, themselves, have been "rousted" while the intended victim has
gone unmolested.
Many arrests have resulted from this type operation.
However, far more apprehensions have resulted from the presence
of officers on or near the scene of the crime, operating as surveillance
units, unrecognized by the criminal. In an instance or two, one of
our officers has been surprised to receive a friendly warning from
"street people" that the "man," meaning the police, was in the area.
In one incident, which I think bears repeating, a white STRESS
officer was approached by a black man who asked, "You got any
money?" The officer's nerves bunches as he prepared to respond to
the assault he believed was coming. He replied, "No." His assailant
reached into his pockets, the officer tensed even more because he thought
at that point in time a robbery was about to occur.
Then the man pulled out a dollar and said, "Here, take this. You
shouldn't walk around here — it's a bad area."
This indication of concern among our black citizens is not miique.
Mr. CoNYERS. That proves it was not an assailant, doesn't it,
Commissioner ?
Mr. Nichols. Did I say assailant? I thought I said accoster.
Mr. CoNYERS. Was it an accoster ?
Mr. Nichols. I was saying it was accosting in the sense the officer
was approached, not accosting and soliciting, Mr. Conyers. Just an
individual stopping another individual. If I conveyed that premise
of assailant, I am terribly sorry, I do not intend to. I don't read well,
apparently.
This indication of concern among our black citizens is not miique.
In one incident involving the shooting of two black youths who had
just committed a robbery, the STRESS program came under great
attack in the news media.
At the same time, we were in the process of receiving what even-
tually totaled more than 5,000 pieces of mail. Fewer than a dozen
were against STRESS.
A sizable proportion of these letters were from black citizens, many
of whom stated they had been victims of street crime themselves.
One statistic that should be mentioned is for robbery in 1971 — the
first full year of STRESS operation. Robberies showed a decrease of
9.9 percent for the year. Only 2 months had increased over correspond-
ing months in 1970.
This decline in robberies was the first such downturn in a decade.
In 1972, in addition to the drop of last year, robberies were down
an additional 18.7 percent over 1971.
Comparing this with the 1970 figures, we have eliminated 6,000
robbery incidents a year — ^this is a most significant figure.
In 1971, STRESS unit officers made 2,496 felony arrests and 300
misdemeanor arrests. In addition, 160 juveniles were detained and
some 600 guns were seized.
In 1972, the first full year of operation, officers made 2,984 felony
arrests, and 300 misdemeanor arrests. Over 1,000 guns were seized and
385
innumerable quantities of narcotics and other contraband were con-
fiscated.
I should like to add here that despite the claims of academicians,
the excessive cost of heroin to an otherwise unemployed individual
demands that the funds to support his habit be violently obtained.
Therefore, claims that heroin use and the occurrence of crime have not
been proven are illogical. One must suspect the motives of those who
persist in failure to see correlation.
Although the primary mission of the STRESS units was directed
against street robberies, the officers have also effected arrests along the
full scale of criminal offenses.
Since the unit was created, 3 ofiicers have been killed, 18 wounded,
and about 70 assaulted.
There is an old maxim in police work that the rapidity and certainty
of apprehension and prosecution is a most effective deterrent to crime.
This factor of certainty of apprehension is the principal deterrent
in street crime. This is how he estimates his risk — how he determines if
it is worth the chance. As a quotation — that was sent to me, allegedly
from the New York Times — states, "Crime will not decrease until
being a criminal becomes more dangerous than being a victim."
By utilizing police officers to stand in place of potential victims, the
department has increased that risk to the criminal — both in appre-
hension and in conviction in court.
He no longer can be certain that the man changing the tire, or the
old lady with the purse, is an easy mark. He must take into considera-
tion the fact that his easy mark may be a fully armed, fully trained
policeman.
In conventional methods, the uniformed police officer is always at a
disadvantage. He is conspicuous. The criminal has no difficulty spot-
ting him or even making a target of him.
In the reverse, however, the officer stares into a mass of people and
can rarely spot a criminal until he acts; at which time it is usually
too late to protect a victim. With STRESS, the criminal must fear
the potential victim. It is the criminal who must worry whether the
man rummaging through the trash, the woman waiting for the light
to change, the man getting off the bus, the driver of the next car, or
even the victim, himself, might be a police officer.
Another decided advantage of ai-rests by the unit is that when a
police officer has been the object of the criminal, prosecution is much
simpler in the sense that the complainant is a trained observer, always
willing to prosecute, and certainly not subject to intimidation.
We are now considering some new techniques using our tactical
mobile unit, a high visibility patrol, and the STRESS unit in con-
certed efforts. While we are only in the discussion stages, we are
proceeding on the premise that the tactical mobile unit deters a consid-
erable amount of street crime. When I say deter, I mean that many
street crimes are either postponed by the presence of uniformed officers
or perhaps displaced ; that is, the criminal simply onoves to another
location and finds a new victim.
If we can predict in which direction the criminal will move we can
be waiting for him. In some cases, because of geographical composi-
tion, this may not be too difficult. If a criminal is deterred in a given
area, he will most likely move away from that area and back into his
386
own environment. To this degree there is some chance of predictability.
In his own environment, a preponderance of unifonn patrols will
most likely only delay the crime in point of time. Theoretically, then,
the withdrawal of a high visibility unit and the simultaneous activa-
tion of a zero visibility unit may increase the apprehension rate.
In concluding, I would like to point out that the unit has come under
sharp criticism from time to time. But I think any new method em-
ployed must invariably face critics from all dimensions. However, the
accomplishments of the unit stand as their own defense. As in the case
of most police criticism, the noise comes fi-om a vocal minority. But
as administrators, it is our responsibility to accurately measure both
the criticism and support. And as long as the support significantly
outweighs the criticism we must continue to utilize our most effective
methods, whatever they may be. Our considered evaluation is that the
program has contributed significantly to the overall crime drop of
some 15 percent in the city of Detroit, particularly in the crimes of
robbery.
Thank you.
Mr. Rangel [presiding]. Mr. Nichols, the committee notices a sub-
stantial deviation from the statement dated December 31, 1972, that
was given to us and the one you just read. Are they in fact two separate
statements ?
Mr. Nichols. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rangel. Would you offer the statement received by the
committee ?
Mr. Nichols. We have brought additional copies. What we tried
to do was update the statement. I also have several other documents.
One is a statement of December 31, 1972, which you have been
furnished.
Mr. Rangel. Let's move the December 31, 1972, document go into
the record.
[The above-mentioned statement appears at the end of Mr. Nichols'
testimony.]
Mr. Rangel. Counsel may inquire.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Nichols, how many policemen operate in the
STRESS operation?
Mr. Nichols. We have never divulged the number. I would pre-
fer not to do that. I will say it is less than 100.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Commissioner, as you may know. Commissioner
Murphy in New York has a similar unit called the citywide anti-
crime section. His policy is to give that unit all the publicity possible,
because it is his philosophy, according to testimony we had from him
on Monday before this committee, that publicizing it acts as a deter-
rent, and at various times the New York papers have widely adver-
'tised or publicized the fact that it is comprised of 200 men and 6
women.
If I understand you correctly, your department classifies the exact
number of STRESS officers. Would you tell us why you pursue that
policy ?
Mr, Nichols. Certainly. Because we do not have the massive amounts
of manpower that the New York Police Department has. In contrast
to 32,000 officers in New York, we have about 5,600, sir.
387
Mr. Lynch. But if I understand your testimony, you are saying it
is less than a hundred. I will be more than happy to defer to your wishes
and not press on the point. I take it, however, that means somewhere
"in the neighborhood of 100 which, in fact, is only half the size of
Commissioner Murphy's unit. He has 200 of his men in the unit, and, of
course, a much larger city to police.
I notice in your December 31 statement, sir, you indicate that only
nine of the officers assigned to STRESS at that time, or approximately
nine, were black. In the light of your statement that a heavy propor-
tion of the robberies, which in fact encouraged you to form STEESS,
were committed by blacks upon blacks ; why is it that only nine mem-
bers of this unit are black ?
Mr. Nichols. I don't know.
Are there still only nine black ?
Statement of James Bannon
Mr. Bannon. No ; that was a temporary figure. Frankly, they won't
give them to me.
Mr. Lynch. Is that classified, too ?
Mr. Bannon. No ; it is not. I keep behind the desk asking for more
black officers and the other commanders won't give them up.
Mr. Lynch. As a matter of policy, wouldn't it be highly advanta-
geous to have a high proportion of blacks, since they have to operate in
predominantly black neighborhoods? Or would it be fair to say they
do operate in predominantly black neighborhoods ?
Mr. Nichols. Not entirely. They operate where the crime pattern
would indicate there is a need for this type of operation.
Mr. Lynch. They are employed as a tactical force, as it were ?
Mr. Nichols. As the crime pattern becomes apparent, then so moves
the STRESS unit.
Mr. Rangel. Excuse me, counsel. Is there something in the 1972
statement which indicates that some 80 percent of your criminals are
black?
Mr. Nichols. Pardon ?
Mr. Rangel. There is some statistical data in the 1972 statement
which indicates that over 80 percent — here it is on page 8 of the 1972
statement : "Police robbei-y figures for the year indicate that 89.8 per-
cent of the known perpetrators were black, 5 to 6 percent white, and
the rest unknown."
Mr. Nichols. That is perpetrators.
Mr. Rangel. It has nothing to do with your high crime areas ?
Mr. Nichols. I fail to see the correlation between perpetrators and
the number of black officers assigned.
Mr. Rangel. My question. Chief, is directed to the high crime area
and perhaps to the ethnic composition of those areas.
Mr. Nichols. It would not necessarily follow if I may point out.
The fact the perpetrator of the crime was black would not necessarily
mean it would have to take place in the predominantly black neighbor-
hood. It might take place in an integrated neighborhood or a white
neighborhood.
Mr. Rangel. I think counsel is trying to find out what is the ethnic
composition of the areas in Detroit that you would consider to be
high crime communities, high crime areas.
388
Mr. Nichols. We have about 8 of our 13 precincts that are fairly
high crime areas and they range from predominantly black to pre-
dominantly white, and through the various ranges and stages of grade,
so to speak, because the crime element does not necessarily confine itself
to the black areas. It confines itself generally to the areas of social
blight, to areas where the social problems have an environment in
which crime seems to thrive, and sometimes it might be an Appalachian
white neighborhood, sometimes it might be a fairly opulent neighbor-
hood on the outskirts of town where these things do occur. We can't
erase them, and I never attempted to postulate that all crime takes
place in any given neighborhood or in any given precinct. I think
the officers here on STKESS can attest to that as well.
Mr. Rangel. Chief, do you have any statistical data to indicate the
ethnic backgrounds of the victims of most of your crimes? Any per-
centages in that area ?
Mr. Nichols. I don't have the statistical data, but we do know
that preponderantly the victim is more likely to be black, more likely
to be poor and black.
Mr. Rangel. So your perpetrators are more likely to be black, the
victims more likely to be black ; and so counsel can continue his ques-
tioning in connection with that composition of STRESS.
Mr. CoNYERs. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for a moment?
Mr. Rangel. Yes.
Mr. CoNYERS. Do you believe that suggests what might be happen-
ing in neighborhoods or parts of the city that might have a pre-
dominance of black residents ^ Or is that an inescapable conclusion ?
Mr. Rangel. By just asking my last question, we would assume coun-
sel's questions made a lot of sense, but obviously, the commissioner
wants to indicate that it is interracial.
Mr. Nichols. It is certainly an interracial thing, and Mr. Conyers
is familiar enough with Detroit to know the Cass Corridor is not a
predominantly black neighborhood, and it is a high crime area. It
is populated by groups of people from several racial derivations, most
of them in extremely low economic status ; and the area is generally
a very high crime area. It is not particularly black, nor is it particu-
larly white. It is a mixture.
Mr. Rangel. In a report of June 1972 called "The Police Chief"
there is a statement attributed to you that the victim's profile was
typically middle-aged or older, there were twice as many male victims
as female victims, the victims usually lived in or near the neighbor-
hood where the robbery took place, and in three-quarters of the cases he
was a black.
Mr. Nichols. True.
Mr. Rangel. Commissioner, obviously, I am not framing my ques-
tions correctly, so I wish counsel would continue to inquire.
Mr. Lynch. Commissioner, based on that statement in your earlier
testimony — and I think your testimony was clear — that in a high
proportion of cases the victims of robbery are black and the crime is
perpetrated by blacks, my only point was that with that understanding
would it not seem reasonable that a concerted effort be made in this
kind of operation to employ the services of more black officers ? I think
Captain Bannon has already indicated that efforts are being made and
that he wishes he had more black officers on the STRESS unit.
389
Mr. Nichols. The fact of the matter, gentleman, is I am not sure
there are only just nine black officers. And I am not certain enough
to attempt to answer a question until I have the data made available.
Mr, Steiger. Commissioner, is it difficult to recruit the black officers
for this particular detail because of the criticism from the black com-
munity ? Is that a problem ?
Mr. Nichols, Not particularly. I think we have restricted ourselves
to volunteer types of operations and I would presume this might have
some impact, although I think the most difiicult thing for me to do
would be to answer that question, I would suggest Patrolman Martin,
who is possibly more knowledgeable as to the outlook of young black
officers on STRESS, would be a great deal more astute in that area
than I.
Mr. Steiger. Would the chairman permit Mr. Martin to respond ?
Mr. Rangel, Yes; and I hope he might keep in consideration this
December 1972 statement, which is signed by John Nichols, It indi-
cated at that time there were nine assigned STRESS officers that
were black.
Mr. Nichols. That was in December of 1972, sir. I don't deny that
in December of 1972; I would buy that. It is now April of 1973, and
I do not know whether there are yet nine, less than nine, or more than
eight, sir.
Mr. CoNYERS. How can we find out ?
Mr. Rangel. With the undercover nature of the operation, I can see
why.
Mr. Steiger. Mr. Martin, is there a feeling among black officers that
there is a stigma attached to being in this unit because of some crit-
icism from the black community ?
Statement of Ronald H. Martin
Mr. Martin. Well, my experience about that is that in the City
of Detroit, over the last couple of years, quite a few policemen, mostly
uniformed policemen, were wounded and killed. And that is wearing
the uniform, with a brightly colored police car, a shiny badge, and it
is doubly hard to work in plainclothes in the street and try to blend in
with the community and not get shot. This might drive a lot of them
away. I can't say what is in their minds, but that could be one of the
reasons.
Mr. Steiger. If I may, is your response to me — is it the difficulty
of the job itself and not the attitude of the community that makes it
difficult to recruit any officers ?
Mr. Martin. That is my opinion.
Mr. Steiger. I mean, in your opinion.
Mr. Martin. Yes.
Mr, Rangel, Could you offer an opinion regarding how many
blacks are presently working with the STRESS program?
Mr, Martin, With my crew, we have five. We have one car. I can't
say for the other shift because we never see the other shift.
Mr. Rangel, Is it safe to say the operation is so undercover the
police commissioner and the member of STRESS are not aware of who
each other are ?
390
Mr. Martin. No, I don't say that. It is just that we try to keep it
out of the limelight as much as possible.
Mr. Rangel. I know ; but from each other and the police chief ?
Mr. Martin. Well, we don't discuss it because it is not — we know
who we are.
Mr. Rangel. Can you distinguish a black police officer from a white
police officer in your normal course of operation ?
Mr. Martin. Yes.
Mr. Rangel. I don't want to know overall how many are involved,
but is anyone here representing the Detroit Police Department pre-
pared to say how many blacks are involved in the STRESS operation ?
Mr. Bannon. To date, 10 black officers.
Mr. Rangel. To date. Would you go along with that ?
Mr. Nichols. He is in command of the organization. Certainly I
go along with it.
Mr. Rangel, I am sorry we wasted so much time. That is the ques-
tion I thought I asked originally.
Mr. Nichols. I would like to publicly state I do not have the sta-
tistics for the composition of every unit at my fingertips.
Mr. Rangel. We thought that we would be discussing the STRESS
operation and in view of the comments made by the newspapers in
Detroit, and in view of all of the criticism from the black community
indicated in your document, I assumed you would think this was a
logical question I might ask.
Mr. Nichols. I didn't look at it that way. Apparently my assump-
tions do not run along similar lines. I assumed this was a congressional
hearing.
Mr. Rangel. And therefore we should not concern ourselves with
a question of race?
Mr. Nichols. I assumed you Avould certainly ask those questions, and
if I could answer them I would be happy to, and if I could not I
would be permitted, as I have in other congressional hearings, to get
the validated data and return it to you in proper form.
Mr. Rangel. Please, Commissioner, feel free to consult with any-
one that you brought here, if you find yourself unable to answer
questions.
Mr. Nichols. Yes, sir, I shall avail myself.
Mr. Rangel. Counsel, would you continue.
Mr. Lynch. Commissioner Nichols, could you explain for us how
you go about selecting officers for participation in STRESS. What
special qualifications, what special selection criteria there are, what
kind of special training, if any. follows selection as a STRESS officer ?
Mr. Nichols. To begin with, the STRESS officers are volunteers.
Second, their service records are screened for a good work record, for
an absence of disciplinary indication, for an absence of citizen's com-
plaints, for ability to get along with their fellow workers. We try to
avoid picking individuals who have shown a disinclination to relate
to other individuals. We put them through a psychological evaluation
and the unit commander. Commander Bannon, set up a STRESS
training program in which the techniques of surveillance, which addi-
tional range training and which continuing reinforcement of the
proper applications and the circumstances under which force can be
used, are given. These are reinforced periodically, I believe. At what
interval, I do not know.
391
How often do you reinforce the training program?
Mr. Bannon. On a daily basis.
Mr. Lynch. Commissioner, I wonder if Commander Bannon could
describe for us the training program as it is presently operating.
Mr. Bannox. The training program as it presently operates, because
of the fact there is not a structured training program m terms of a
classroom context because of the fact the men are brought in as replace-
ments only and I am not allowed to get a dozen at a time or something
like that. So we get replacements for those men promoted, or trans-
ferred, or for some reason leave the outfit, are shot or sometliing hap-
pens to them.
There is an indoctrination period of about 2 weeks by the super-
\'isors of the unit, which includes review of the State's law on entrap-
ment and other issues of search and seizure. There is indepth "shoot,
no shoot" training presentation. There is a great deal of on-the-job
training.
Mr. Lynch. Woidd you describe for the committee what you mean
by the "shoot, no shoot" training ? ■
' Mr. Bannon. Tliis is a slide presentation which is a pictorial repre-
sentation of the crisis situations presented to the officer through the
medium of a projector. He must make a decision as to whether or not
he should fire to save his own life or somebody else's, and his situation
is often not as he underetood it to be. Perhaps if he decides to fire, on
second view of the slide he seas his partner was getting in the way, or
a woman holding a child in her arms, or something of that nature. It
is a decisionmaking process training, which seems to be somewhat
effective.
Mr. Lynch. How many STRESS officer's have been shot or other-
wise wounded in line of duty ; do you know, sir ?
Mr. Bannon. Seventeen. That is wounded or shot, yes.
Mr. Lynch. How many of those officers were killed in line of duty ?
Mr. Bannon. Three.
Mr. Lynch. Is that a high rate, Commander?
Mr. Bannon. One would be a high rate as far as I am concerned as
an individual. It is, I think, the nature of our job, the nature of the
depths of the problems at an acceptable level of risk, because we have
that commitment to protect our people, to protect our community ; that
is what we are hired to do. It is an acceptable level ; I don't like it,
Avouldn't like it if it was only one.
Mr. Steiger. Commander, in the interest of clarification, on page 8
of the December 31 statement, we talked about the three officers who
have been killed and you have the figure of 100 wounded or injured.
Mr. Bannon. Seventeen wounded.
Mr. Steioer. You make a distinction between the wounded and
injured?
Mr. Bannon. Yes. The injured are injured in making the arrest.
Perhaps they are assaulted by arrestee or something like that. It is a
relatively minor type — it could be major, but it usually isn't.
Mr. Steiger. It isn't a gun or a knife ?
Mr. Nichols. It is an assault and battery or an aggravated assault,
assault with something other than a weapon.
Mr. Steiger. I understand.
Mr. Rangel. Mr. Bannon, did you testify earlier that your depart-
ment was presently trying to recruit blacks for STRESS ?
95-158 O— 73— pt. 1 26
392
Mr. Bannon. As a matter of fact, I have a waiting list of black
officers who want to come into STRESS, but I can't convince the other
commanders to give them up. Black officers are a high priority item
for many other functions within the police department, including vice,
narcotics, and other units. We have to take our place in that priority
system to get these individual officers even though they have volun-
teered to come into the unit.
Mr. R ANGEL. Well, Commissioner, is there presently a recruiting
drive to get blacks on the police force ?
Mr. Nichols. There is a massive recruiting drive; a drive which
has been reasonably successful. The number of black officers on the
Detroit Police Department — and I w^ould be subject to an error of
three to five — is somewhere in the neighborhood of 737. And as the
commander points out, we are hard pressed as to where to deploy these
individuals to get the maximum benefit from their expertise and the
maximum benefit of their presence in the community.
We have equally the same problem, gentlemen, with our black super-
visors. We are torn between the need to have black supervisors in plain-
clothes, and we are torn between the need to have a high degree of black
supervision in the precinct where a preponderant number of young
black officers are.
We are attempting to remedy that situation ; again, by our recruiting
drive. But I think we have to recognize that the need is far greater than
our ability to commit. And what Commander Bannon says is exactly
true.
Mr. Rangel. Blacks are a premium not only to STRESS but in the
department ?
Mr. Nichols. Across the entire face of the department.
Mr. Rangel. If you did have blacks available, based on how you
deal with STRESS, you could not really put them on anyway, since
I understood your response to counsel was that you only replace a
STRESS agent?
Mr. Bannon. That is not necessarily so. The replacement thing goes
on all of the time, and if I could replace with a black officer rather
than a white, I would.
I think, though, I would like to say this in response to some of these
questions. I think you are overemphasizing, sir, the decoy phase which
would infer needing a black officer for decoy, if you save the black vic-
tim. What we are saying is the decoy phase of STRESS is about 20
percent of the time factor, and the surveillance doesn't necessarily re-
quire a black officer to be eifective. I think if you take that into con-
sideration you will see there is some justification for the putting them
out there even though they are white.
Mr. Rangel. Does not surveillance mean observing the conduct of a
suspect by a police officer from a reasonable distance ?
Mr. Bannon. The survey neighborhood. We are operating on a pat-
tern. We only commit the STRESS group based on a pattern of prior
crime. So we know, basically, what we are looking for in terms of the
general appearance of the culprits and so on. So we surveil a neighbor-
hood. We go in there as insurance salesmen or busdrivers, or truck-
drivers, or cabdrivers. All of these different modes. So we are survey-
ing, looking for the potential robber. That doesn't necessarily imply
to me you need a black officer to do that.
393
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, if I may I would like to take issue with
the commander. It seems to me that in the earlier testimony we were
not given numbers, nor are they publicly made available. I think one
reason is the commissioner feels that he does not want to divulge the
number of officers in STRESS so as to keep this force more invisible.
It seems to me to make only good sense that invisibility has something
to do with race and certain high crime areas of Detroit, so the commit-
tee is not solely concerned with the decoy operation. That was the only
point.
Mr. Bannon. Mr. Lynch, perhaps you are not familiar with Detroit.
It is not a ghettoized, racial community. The racial makeup of most
of the areas of Detroit is pretty much heterogeneous, and ;^ou seem to be
implying that there are all black communities in Detroit in which a
white face stands out.
Mr. Lynch. I am quite familiar with Detroit. I lived in the Detroit
area a number of years and practiced law there, and there are indeed
a number of racial enclaves, although not the kind we might find in
some other cities. But the only point is that it would, it seeras to me,
assist the department in creating further invisibility by haying more
substantial proportions of blacks on this unit; and I take it you are
not quarreling with that ?
Mr. Nichols. No.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, may I continue?
Mr. Rangel. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. You were discussing the training and the commissioner
mentioned that there is some continuing inservice training. I wonder if
you could describe that for us, please.
Mr. Bannon. The continuing inservice training may involve what
the rest of the department is exposed to in terms of new issues in
search and seizure and other new matters. It may involve a new
surveillance technique we develop for a given type of crime or specific
type of problem. We may reorient the entire unit for a given period
of time. We may have a rapist operating in a certain section of the
city and want to reorient the STRESS unit. To the extent they are
reoriented, they ai^ no longer STRESS, they are not working on
street robbery. We reorient the entire unit or major portions of it
to work with hijackings of tires on railroad cars, on major narcotics
problems.
Mr. Nichols. Or riding the freight trains being ripped off while
moving from one section of the city, of the section to the other. One
whole segment of our operation went into that, where the men adopted
the guise and bandannas of railroad workmen and rode the area of
the Pennsylvania line, commonly known in the trade as "Ho Chi
Minh Trail.-' So they are committed to different types of operations,
and the racial makeup doesn't mean they cannot be effectively used
in this area.
Mr. Lynch. STRESS officers usually operate in teams; is that cor-
rect? They are rarely, if ever, used singly?
Mr. Bannon. They will be occasionally loaned out singly to act as
a pigeon or target in extortion plots, but normally I think they always
do work in teams; yes.
394
Mr. Lynch. What kind of communications equipment would the
STRESS officer carry on his person?
Mr. Bannon. He normally carries the Prep radio, which in our
view is a very good instrument for general communication. We have
on order, unfortunately technology hasn't caught up with the need,
open mike transfers from the decoy phase of the operation. We do
have them on order, but we haven't gotten them as yet.
Mr. Lynch. That would enable someone to transmit without holding
something up to his face?
Mr. Bannon. Without the physical act of pressing the transmitter
button and thereby alerting the robber.
Mr. Lynch. A STRESS officer who is on decoy detail or a STRESS
officer who is working with a team, walking down the street in a
high crime area, can he communicate with the precinct station or
your base station and with other foot imdercover patrolmen in the
area?
Mr. Nichols. Why don't we let the officers answer them? We
brought them here for these kind of intimate questions.
Mr. Lynch. Would one of you gentlemen answer that, please ?
Statement of John P. Ricci
Mr. Ricci. It has been my experience and that of colleagues I work
with that on a target-type operation, where one man is set up as, if you
will allow, to be used as the target we usually do not equip him with
communication per se in the form of a Prep radio because, of course,
this radio is on — police calls are coming over that and it may disrupt
the operation. However, his cover and surveillance by his fellow offi-
cers is maintamed in a very close proximity. In the event something
should take place, the officers can respond within a matter of seconds.
Mr. Lynch. So you have line- sight observation of someone ?
Mr. Ricci. At all times.
Mr. Lynch. Do each of you, however, normally carry some kind of
walkie-talkie transceiver? What is the Prep? You call it a "Prep
radio."
Mr. Ricci. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. Would you describe what that is ?
Mr. Ricci. I could briefly describe it as a very small version of the
old military walkie-talkie. I would like to state that those officers who
are covering the intended target are equipped with a Prep radio, and
we also have the officer in sight. They can at any time notify patrol
units, specific areas such as the precinct of operation, and also our
base. They are within communication at all times.
Mr. Lynch. What kind of protective gear, if any, do you wear when
on STRESS operation, Officer Ricci ?
Mr. Ricci. We have been very fortunate to have issued to each officer
and to all crews what they refer to as the "second chance" armored
vest. It is composed of a fiberglas-type material. It fits over the shoul-
ders and it is held by means of a strap wliich is secured by some other
fiber.
Mr. Bannon. We would like to say that has saved about four of-
ficers' lives.
Mr. Lynch. Would you describe how that happened, what they
were shot with ?
395
Mr. Bannon. They were shot with .38-caliber weapons.
Mr. Lynch. Were they injured ?
Mr. Bannon. No.
Mr. Nichols. Bruised, but no blood drawn,
Mr. Rangei.. Officer Ricci, you were talking about surveillance and
keeping the so-called target under cover. Do you find in the black
community that having these officers be black, or in a white community
having the surveillance officers be white, might improve the quality of
your police work ?
Mr. Ricci. Sir, I would like to state this, as my commander had
previously stated, that the STRESS operation in itself ^^perates
strictly on each separate type of crime. In other words, the crime
situation that we are trying to remedy or eradicate from our area,
or our city, dictates the type of procedure and the type of personnel
we will use. In other words, if I may use the Cass Corridor as an
example, which is a smattering of different nationalities, Chicanos,
Spanish, Italian, Jewish, Polish, Negro, so on and so forth, we will
use the type of personnel who will fit in that area.
Now, we have an analytical section wliich computes all the crimes
which happen on a day-to-day basis, and that in turn, prior to our
going out on the streets, informs us of these specific hard hit crime
areas.
Mr. Rangel. That makes a lot of sense, officer. I hope the stenogra-
pher would read my question back.
[Question read by the reporter.] Officer Ricci, you were talking
about surveillance and keeping the so-called target under cover. Do
you find in the black community that having these officers be black,
or a white commiuiity having the surveillance officer be white, might
improve the quality of your police work?
Mr. Rangel. That was my question.
Mr. Ricci. I was attempting to answer that. Each situation will
dictate the type of personnel we need.
Mr. Rangel. I assumed that. I am giving you a specific situation,
an all-black community. I don't know whether you have such a com-
munity in Detroit, but' I am just assuming from what I read that you
do have pockets of blacks and pockets of whites. My question has
nothing to do with the Corridor, which I assume is interracial in
flavor. But I am just asking, "Would it protect your police officer a
little more, or make your operation a little more successful, if the
police officers that were surveying the target blended with the par-
ticular community in which he was operating?"
Mr. Ricci. Yes, sir ; definitely.
Mr. Rangel. Thank you.
Counsel, you may continue.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Officer Ricci, I wonder if you could tell us how long you have been
a member of STRESS?
Mr. Ricci. I have been a member of STRESS ever since its
inception.
Mr. Lynch. Could you approximate how many felony arrests you
have made, sir, since being a member of this unit ?
Mr. Ricci. I would say on an average basis, approximately 30 to
45 felony arrests per month.
396
Mr. Ltnch. Per month ?
Mr. Riaci. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. Individually?
Mr. Ricci. Specifically what do you mean ?
Mr. Lynch. Those -^ere your arrests or arrests made by your team ?
Mr. Ricci. By my team, sir.
Mr. Lynch. Your team would be composed of approximately how
many officers ?
Mr. Ricci. Approximately four men per team.
Mr. Lynch. How would that relate to the number of arrests that
might be made by a four-man uniformed patrol team if you had such
teams ? Is it high, is it low, or average ?
Mr. Ricci. I think that would be extremely high in comparison to
their arrests.
Mr. Lynch. And I believe I asked whether these would be arrests
for felonies, major felonies. I am talking specifically about aggravated
assault on the streets, murder attempts, armed robberies, muggings.
Are those the kinds of things that we are talking about ?
Mr. Ricci. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. Wlien you patrol as a STRESS team do you concen-
trate on particular kinds of crimes and let others go unnoticed, or not
make arrests for them ? Do you concentrate on trying to catch armed
robbers? How do you operate?
Mr. Ricci. Well, first of all, as a law-enforcement officer, it is my
duty to make an arrest.
Mr. Lynch. I understand. I think we all do.
Mr. Ricci. I wanted to just clear that up, when you said do I over-
look other things.
Mr. Lynch. Perhaps that is a bad choice of words. It is not an issue
of overlooking. I am wondering whether you concentrate and go on
details at various times with various goals in mind, such as suppressing
robberies in a particular neighborhood.
Mr. Nichols. I think this was answered by Commander Bannon and
myself. The concentration of the unit and crime — the picture dictates
the crime they would be addressing themselves to primarily, but not
to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Steiger. Counsel, excuse me.
I think it is a good question. As a layman, I think I understand the
question. If there is a woman hustling, do you in the normal course of
your activity pick her up ? If you see a guy dealing in numbers would
you pick him up or would you advise somebody else and go on about
your primary mission ? I think that was the thrust of the question.
Mr. Ricci. That is correct. I would make every attempt to have the
unit specifically trained for that type of crime. You use prostitution
as an example. We have vice squads on the street and we usually don't
like to get involved with their operations.
Mr. Rangel. Counsel, Chairman Pepper has invited the distin-
guished gentleman from Detroit, Congressman Conyers, to participate
with this committee because of his knowledge of the area of Detroit.
And so if you could hold your questions and allow him to inquire, then
the chair would recognize Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Lynch. I would be delighted to yield.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
397
I would like to ask your Detroit commissioner of police how he has
responded to public inquiries about the operation of the STRESS unit.
Mr. Nichols. In what particular area, sir ?
Mr. CoNYERS. In all particular areas. T\niat I was getting at is, do
you feel that this is a rather controversial part of the Detroit police
force ?
Mr. Nichols. I think that would be a very valid statement. It cer-
tainly raised a great deal of inquiry, attracted a great deal of publicity
in the press. I think part of it is due to the nature of the operation,
which may not have been an ideal one but which in retrospect we can
do little about.
Yes ; it has been controversial ; and yes ; I have attempted to respond
to this as honestly and candidly as I can.
Mr. CoNYERS. Thank you. In other words, you meet with the public
and you are aware of the number of investigations that STRESS is
under ?
Mr. Nichols. The number of investigations that STRESS is in-
volved in, or the number of investigations concerning STRESS
operations?
Mr. CoNYBRs. Well, either or both.
Mr. Nichols. Well, maybe I don't quite understand your question,
sir. I don't know the number of investigations in which STRESS
men are conducting. I have no knowledge of that.
Mr. Rangel. He means that STRESS is the subject of.
Mr. Nichols. Yes ; I am aware of them.
Mr. CoNYEKs. There are a number of them going on ?
Mr. Nichols. Yes, sir.
Mr. CoNYERS. Could you tell us which ones are going on that you
know about?
Mr. Nichols. There is a massive investigation concerning that man-
hunt for the individuals who were involved in the shooting of six
STRESS officers during a period last winter. Of that there were 26
complaints lodged against, primarily against STRESS officers, al-
though I am not certain they all were STRESS but they purported
to be STRESS. That situation has been brought before our common
council; the initial investigation has been reviewed; they have been
sent back with interrogatories from the council members; they are
still under investigation. Some of them have been resolved, some of
them have not been resolved. One individual from STRESS is cur-
rently under indictment on a charge of homicide.
Mr. CoNYERS. Is that police officer Raymond Peterson ?
Mr. Nichols. It is indeed.
Mr. CoNYERS. Charged with murder and involved in six killings?
Mr. Nichols. He was charged with murder and one killing, sir, in
which the evidence was sufficient to present it to the prosecutor and a
warrant issued. And the other killings, the evidence was likewise
reported to the prosecutor.
Mr. CoNYERs. This grew out of the fact that a departmental investi-
gation disclosed that tlie knife found on the body of a person killed
by him actually belonged to the police officer?
Mr. Nichols. Yes, it did. The investigation was initiated by the
department. The evidence was analyzed by the department and I
should also like to add, gentlemen, the individual was off duty at the
398
time. He was acting on a folly of his own and not while he was in
any kind of a STRESS situation,
Mr. Rangel. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. CoNYERs. Surely.
Mr. Rangel. Does the police department's civil service regulations
differ from other cities ? When a police officer is not actually assigned
to a post, is he off duty ?
Mr. Nichols. In the sense of being responsive to recall, he is off
duty ; yes, sir.
Mr. Rangel. So, a police officer has no obligation to enforce the
law during his leisure ?
Mr. Nichols. He has an obligation. He has a moral obligation.
But at that particular time he was not under direct supervision of
his commander, or sergeant, or lieutenant in the STRESS operation.
Mr. Rangel. We all have a moral obligation. I am talking about a
legal operation. Is not your police force on duty 24 houi-s a day?
Mr. Nichols. Technically, yes, sir.
Mr. Rangel. So the fact he was not specifically assigned to the
command is irrelevant; he was acting as a Detroit peace officer?
Mr. Nichols. I am not attempting to deny he was a Detroit police
officer.
Mr. Rangel. I just misunderstood you when you said he was off
duty. In fact, unless he is suspended he is always on duty.
Mr. Nichols. It is a question of semantics. An individual works
8 hours a day. He gets paid for 8 hours a day. And in one terminology
if he is not getting paid for that work, I would say he is off duty in
that sense.
Mr. Rangel. Your pay schedule does not take into account that a
police officer is a police officer 24 hours a day?
Mr. NiCHoi^. No, sir ; it does not. It takes into account officers work
40 hours a week for which they get paid. If they do overtime work
and it is documented, contractual provisions pro\dde for that. He does
not get paid for going home and going to work.
Mr. Rangel. If a police officer is off duty and saw a crime, a felony
committed, he would only have a moral obligation to arrest?
Mr. Nichols. I don't think any commander would take him to task
for a judgment if he failed to take action if his estimation of the situa-
tion did not require it at that time.
Mr. Rangel. I am not making myself clear ?
Mr. Nichols. Apparently not.
Mr. Rangel. I am asking if a police officer of the city of Detroit is
technically off duty and he sees a felony or a series of felonies being
committed in his presence, does he only have a moral obligation to
attempt to arrest the perpetrator ?
Mr. Nichols. And I am answering it by saying I don't think it would
be supportable to charge him with a violation of the department rules
if he failed to do so, if he felt it was not within his discretionary
powers at that time to do it. If it was a question of cowardice or being
paid off or something else, then certainly there would be ramifications
of disciplinary action. That is all I am trying to say.
Mr. Rangel. You are saying that if crimes are being committed in
front of Detroit police officers and they are not on their regular shift
399
they have the discretion as to whether or not they would enforce the
law?
Mr. Nichols. Certainly. In fact, in many instances we advise them
not to enforce the law. We admonish our officers not to get involved in
neighborhood disputes, for example, by direct order.
Mr. Kangel. I am surprised by the differences between your regula-
tions and those which govern police conduct in New York City.
Mr. CoxYERS. Well, Mr. Commissioner, are you certain about the re-
marks you just made to the acting chairman ?
Mr. Nichols. I think I am. I might be uncertain in the way they
were interpreted, but I am certain about what I said.
Mr. CoNYERS. I just wanted to make certain because it seemed a little
unusual to me. But let's continue with my question of how many inves-
tigations are being conducted concerning the STRESS unit and offi-
cers which lead into questions such as violations of the constitutional
rights of citizens.
Mr. Nichols. To the best of my knowledge there is that investiga-
tion conducted by the common council; there is an independent in-
vestigation being conducted by an ad hoc committee of which we have
no Imowledge; there have been applications made to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. I do not know what status that investiga-
tion is in, if in fact it is being conducted. I would assume that there
are isolated complaints of other STRESS offices under investigation
by our citizens complaint bureau, and possibly by the commanders of
STRESS itself.
Mr. CoNYERS. Now, how many citizens have been killed as a result
of the STRESS unit?
Mr. Nichols. Since when, sir ?
Mr. CoNYERS. How long has STRESS been in existence ?
Mr. Nichols. Since January of 1971. I think about 15, I am not
certain.
Mr. CoNYERS. Would 18 possibly be a correct number ?
Mr. Nichols. Eighteen might be a valid number of individuals who
have been killed by officers assigned to STRESS, but not necessarily
on the STRESS operation. That would include the matter under which
we have just had the discussion, which was not a STRESS operation.
That was the only point I was trying to make.
Mr. CoNYERs. Are you aware — and perhaps I should direct this to
Officer Martin — that even associations of Detroit policemen have voiced
some criticism of the operation of STRESS ?
Mr. Martin. The association ?
Mr. CoNYERS. I said some associations of Detroit policemen have
voiced criticism of the way STRESS has operated.
Mr. Martin. If you are talking about the Guardians of Michigan,
in which the membership is primarily suburban departments, black
officers of suburban departments, which there is very few number of
Detroit policemen working, which I don't belong to, they may voice
their opinions against STRESS. But the majority of those police-
men are not Detroit policemen.
Mr. CoNYERS. When you say suburban departments of the police de-
partment, what do you mean ?
Mr. Martin. Inkster, Royal Oak, places like that.
Mr. Conyers. Well, the Guardians is one of the units that I was re-
ferring to, and it is composed primarily of black police officers.
400
Mr. Martin. That is correct, sir.
urUnMl?:Li^f '' '' ^^^^ ^-^^-^--' '^^' --t of them are sub-
Dpfroit^XfW^''' ^'n ^^^"^ I '^y surburban, outside of the city of
belongto!^ ^^""^ ^^^ ^ '^'"^'' deputies, which most of those
poHceo^Sr* ^"^ ^'''' ^^""^ ^""^ '^^^ ^'""""^ ""^''y ""^ ^^^"^ ^^^ ^^troit
wifh''n.^'nT' -I ^'r^"" ''S ^^^^5 si^; ^^it I have come in contact
with most Detroit pohce officers who stated they don't belong to them
But I can't give an accurate number. ^
Mr. CoNTERs. Well, let me ask you about one of the incidents that
created a great deal of unfavorable publicity relating to STEESS in
the' wJvnV p'" "rQi!^--S'^'T^' "^ connection with a Ihootout between
the Wayne County Sheriff's Department deputies and STRESS of-
ficers. I presume you recall that incident «
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir.
, Mr. CoNYERs. It resulted in the death of a sheriff's deputy and the in-
jury ot several others ?
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. CoNYERs. It was the result of a mistake on the part of STEESS
unit's officers ? ^ .oxiu^oo
Mr. Martin. No, sir. I beg your pardon, sir ?
Mr. CoNYERs. It was intentional ?
Mr. Martin. No, it was not intentional. It was an accident and it
was a mistake.
Mr. Con YERS Correct. You agree that it did create a great deal of
unfavorable publicity ?
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir ; it did.
Mr. CoNYERs. And there are a number of other incidents from which
citizens complaints have arisen including illegal breaking and enter-
^^fr^^r ^"^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ than the proper legal credentials?
Mr. Martin. You are asking me another question «
Mr. CoNYERs. Yes, I am.
Mr. Martin. There have been many complaints, sir. There has been
a lot of adverse piibbcity, but if these complaints are substantiated
that IS another question.
Mr. Nichols. May I be permitted to complicate the question, sir «
Mr. CoNYERs. By all means.
^'"" l^^^^^^f-- ^ ^^^."^^ ^t the point in time these complaints were
made, the Michigan State law specifically defined the right of an offi-
cer to enter a place where he believed an individual for whom he held
a felony warrant resided or lived or may have been in hiding, after
having announced himself, gave him the right to break the door. This
waswi this premise that many of these complaints and allegations were
oK^ Ia^'' ''''"''''i^ '''''^'^ decision said, in essence, that the department
should have gotten a search warrant. This case is still up for appeal
and I submit that we have to objectively view the officer plus his con-
duct m terms of what the law appeared to be at that particular time,
Mr. CoNYERs. Thank you. Now, of course, a police department's rep-
utation cannot stand too many fatal errors, can it, Officer Martin ? For
401
example, the one in which Wayne County and Detroit law enforcement
agencies had a shootout between each other ?
Mr. Martin. You are correct on that, sir ; but we didn't start that
shootout.
Mr. CoNYERS. I see. Can you describe to us the circumstances under
which this very tragic mistake took place ?
You don't have to look to the commissioner. You know more about
it than he does.
Mr. Martin. It is a matter of record.
Mr. Nichols. It has been tried in court. I think the members of the
committee should know this. The officer has been to court. He has been
tried by a jury. Every facet of the case has been explored. We have no
aversion at all if the officer cares to detail it in great detail.
Mr. Rangel. Thank you so much, Commissioner.
Mr. Nichols. You would like to hear it?
Mr. CoNYERS. No; I don't want to retry the case. These are not
adversary proceedings. What we are trying to do is find out how
efficient or effective the STRESS unit is in comparison with other
anticrime units that are conducted in urban police forces across the
Nation. This kind of tragedy, which has no equal in other similar
units inside police departments that we know of, certainly requires
some discussion while you are here before this committee.
Mr. Martin. That night, sir ; the crew I was working with was not
on a. STRESS detail. We were doing routine undercover plainclothes
police work. At approximately 12 :05 a.m., of March 9, my crew, which
was three of us in the car at that particular time, observed a black
male in an alley. We turned the comer and pulled up a little closer to
the man and observed this man was wearing plain clothes and was
carrying a nickel-plated revolver in his hand.
We had an obligation to the occupants of that building and to the
city of Detroit and our department to try to get to that individual.
We stopped our car. We watched the man climb the flight of iron
stairs to the second floor, a motel-type building. He entered the apart-
ment at the top of the stairs. We didn't think to apprehend him on the
stairs or on the porch because we were on the lower level, which
would give him an advantage over us.
We reached the top flight of the stairs and glanced in. I glanced in
as I passed the door and saw this man in the living room with this gun
in his hand. I saw several other individuals in the living room, which
was just a glance as I passed the door. My partner immediately was
following me, behind me, coming up the stairs.
I stepped to the left of the door and my partner opened the door and
announced himself as a police officer. He had his badge and his gun in
his hand.
This door was a storm door — glass — and the wooden door was ajar,
we could see.
At that point, shots rang out, my partner backed out, down the
stairs. I ran to my left, which was the end of the porch, which at that
time I thought it was an apartment at the end, but there was a door to
an enclosed stairwell. I thought I was trapped on the porch. This
man. or a man, which I never could identify, came to the door, fired
out into the courtyard.
I fired one shot from, not a service revolver, but my privately owned
Cougar, and the type of ammunition I was using jammed after the
402
first shot. The man then made a quick step onto the porch, fired two
shots at me, one shot ricocheting off the brick about 5 inches from my
head and the other shot going through my legs and embedding in the
door behind me.
I fired more shots.
Tlie driver of our car at that time was radioing on the radio that
a police officer was shot. He then ran to the top of the stairs. He saw
me, and at the top of the stairs is the door to the apartment. He glanced
in and heard a commotion. He yelled, "They are going out the back.'-'
My partner opened the door.
I know a man just fired out that door at me and into the courtyard.
I had to cover my partner.
Mr. CoNYERs. So, it Avas a terrible series of mistakes.
Mr. Rangel. May I inquire ? Would you yield ?
Mr. CoNYERs. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rangel. This person you are talking about with this pistol,
was he walking the street with the pistol in his hand ?
Mr. Martin. When we saw him he was in the alley in the rear of
the apartment building. We assumed he just got out of the car. The
car was parked in the rear there. We had no idea that he was a deputy ;
we had no idea what his intentions were, other than the fact he may
have been going up there to rob individuals.
Mr. Rangel. I can understand that; but my question is, "Did this
deputy have a silver-coated or silver-plated pistol in his hand in the
alley?"
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rangel. Could you describe what he was doing with it in the
alley?
Mr. Martin. He was walking w^ith it in his hand, sir. And if I was
a law enforcement officer on foot, by myself, in an alley, in that neigh-
borhood, I would also cari-y my gim in my hand. But I didn't know he
was a law enforcement officer.
Mr. Rangel. It never entered your mind ?
Mr. Martin. Not the way he was dressed, sir.
Mr. Rangel. Were you dressed as a law enforcement officer ?
Mr. Martin. I was dressed in plainclothes but I was with a police
car.
Mr. Rangel. But if you were in the alley, you wouldn't have looked
like a police officer to him.
Mr. Martin. That is correct.
Mr. Rangel. Was he black ?
Mr. Martin. He was black.
Mr. CoNYERS. Now, out of this tragedy. Commissioner Nichols,
have we learned anything that can assure our citizens that this will
not occur again and further corrode the reputation of the STRESS
unit?
Mr. Nichols. We have learned, I think. Congressman Conyers, a
great deal. We have made a great many modifications and a great
many changes in the STRESS operation, based first upon our own
continuing evaluation, and, second, upon input and citizen concern.
I think the fact that the acting chairman raised brought about
another change in the STRESS operation, in the rephotographing of
all of our officers and a specific reflectorized identification card, so if an
403
individual who does appear with a heavy beard and in clothes other
than conventional clothes presents a badge, he then has a specific card
picturing himself in that particular attire and in that particular facial-
hair configuration, so an individual would then know he is in fact a
police officer.
We recognize the problem of identification is a serious one.
Mr. Rangel. That wouldn't help the deputy, though.
Mr. Nichols. Not at that particular point in time. But it does help
in a lot of situations where an individual who is an officer is stopped
by an officer and displays a badge, and the uniformed officer says, "I
don't believe you are a policeman, show me something." The photo-
graph may not match the individual's configuration at that time, so
to correct this we have issued every one of our plain clothes miits a
different colored coded card.
Mr. Rangel. But so far no STRESS officer has shot another officer
because of lack of identification ?
Mr. Nichols. No, sir; but we have had near misses, and I think if
the truth were known other cities have had near misses, too.
Mr. Rangel. The truth is that a black police officer off duty in the
city of New York was shot dead by brother officers when the victim
attempted to arrest the perpetrator.
Mr. Nichols. I think to amplify the intenseness, seriousness, and
tension under which we live, one of our officers in full uniform was
shot by two of his brothers in full imiform in the same kind of con-
frontation.
Mr. Rangel. We are not here to criticize, for we do not know the cir-
cumstances under which you work. We only are attempting to compare
what other cities are doing with yours and share that information
with you.
Mr. Nichols. Do you want me to answer the rest of the question?
Mr. CoNYERs. Yes.
Mr. Nichols. Fine.
We have also increased the size of the unit, added more supervision
to the unit, increased the training of the unit, added psychological
testing after the first problems that we had. We rotate our personnel.
We attempt to get the best individuals that we can and we investigate
with complete thoroughness any allegations made in an effort, again,
to bring out anything which is causing that kind of friction in the
community.
I think in all sincerity we must recognize that it has been, and will
continue to be, a political issue.
Mr. CoNYERS. What is political about it ?
Mr. Nichols. Do you really want me to tell you ?
]Mr. CoNYERS. You didn't come all the way to Washington not to
tell us ; did you ?
Mr. Nichols. I think there certainly is in the mayorality race going
on in the city of Detroit. Some of the candidates have already ex-
pressed pleasure or displeasure with STRESS. One of the candidates
at one time was a judge and the STRESS case in front of him.
If it is the truth you want, I think we have to recognize this in its
total concept, too, gentlemen. And it does make good copy. We have to
recognize this.
Mr. CoNYERS. Are you suggesting now that the politics of the elec-
404
tion of the city of Detroit in connection with the mayor's race is one
of the fueling or motivating forces behind much of the criticism that
arises out of STRESS?
Mr. Nichols. Not at all. I am merely suggesting that is one of the
reasons why it is constantly in the papers and the media. Not that it
is one of the motivating factors for citizens' complaint, but merely the
fact it has become, as you well know and all of us well know in Detroit,
a cause celebre. It is good newspaper copy. Any time an officer is in-
volved in anything, if he is assigned to STRESS it gets first priority
in the news, even if it is only a divorce case.
Mr. CoNYERS. I yield at this point, Mr. Chairman.
Mr, Steiger. Gentlemen, I am impressed that STRESS has had its
problems, as I wasn't aware of that prior to our meeting. I also come to
the inescapable conclusion, from the testimony of the men before us
that make up the force, that in spite of the criticism the project is
worth the continued effort, because it is clear the simple thing to do
would be to abandon it and that way avoid criticism.
Is that a fair condition ?
Mr. Nichols. That is as fair a conclusion as I can say. Yes, sir; it is.
Mr. Steiger. Then I would ask this : Is there, as a result of the criti-
cism, Mr. Ricci, a morale problem among the troops?
Mr. Ricci. None whatsoever.
Mr. Steiger. ]Mr. INIartin, would you concur with that?
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir ; I would.
Mr. Steiger. So, obviously, in the face of this kind of criticism if
there is not a morale problem, there must be a very good morale
climate to combat that. I don't want to make these conclusions, but
is that a fair assumption ?
Mr. Martin. We are like one family. Whatever happens to one of
us, happens to all of us.
Mr. Steiger. I gather from the commissioner's and the commander's
report that there are 13 precincts in the city of Detroit, and that most
of the activity is in five to eight of these precincts?
Mr. Nichols. Yes.
Mr. Steiger. The people who "work the streets" in those precincts
where you have had operations, are they aware now they have a
problem ?
Mr. Martin. Yes,
Mr. Steiger. Do you feel that your presence has had some kind of
inhibiting effect on the general activity on those beats?
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir,
Mr. Ricci. Yes, sir.
Mr. Martin. I feel that the person out there that is bent on commit-
ting a crime will think twice, because he doesn't know who the
STRESS officer is.
Mr, Steiger. In other words, the STRESS operation is well enough
known on the street. They know that now they can't just look for a
uniform, but they also have to look and see if they can spot "the man"
in civilian clothes?'
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ricci. I would like to reinforce that statement by relating a lit-
tle episode that took place that I was involved in. We were conducting
a target-type operation and I actually had a bar owner come out on
405
the street and he walked right up to my Chevrolet and to myself and
told us, "Thank you very much. I can at least keep my door open
now and I don't have to have a buzzer on it."
So it is this public sentiment that also keeps us going.
Mr. Steiger. How do you maintain your cover? I gather there is
no concern about exposure, otherwise you obviously wouldn't be here.
How long before you are spotted in a given area? Have any of the
members of the STRESS teams had their cover blown to the point
they are not effective in a given neighborhood?
Mr. Martin. If we work an area too much, we are recognized. If
you are using a department unmarked car, but if you are in what we
call a fmmy car, which could be a 1952 Chevrolet convertible, you
might be spotted as a police officer, but they would think you are off
duty. And a lot of people think because you are off duty that they can
do just what they are going to do even though they are working.
Mr. Rangel. Isn't that what the commissioner just said?
Mr. Martin. I say they think we are off duty, but we are actually
on duty.
Mr. Rangel. You work 8 hours a day ?
Mr. Martin. Yes, sir. But I am saying we might be riding around
in what we call a "funny car." It could be a van. I used the other day
a Chevrolet convertible.
Mr. Rangel. But you were on duty ?
Mr. Martin. I was on duty, but the people on the street recognized
me as a police officer. But they say, "There goes so-and-so," because
he is off duty.
Mr. Rangel. And they would be right, because you would not be en-
forcing the law if you were off duty otherwise ?
Mr. Martin. What the commissioner was talking about was some-
thing left up to the individual.
Mr. Rangel. You would make the decision.
Mr. CoNTERs. Are you sure, commissioner and all officers of the
Detroit Police Department, that that conforms with your own police
department regulations ?
Mr. Nichols. I am reasonably sure. Congressman ; the areas of dis-
cretion for an officer are never abrogated. There is not an order in the
Detroit Police Department that tells him he must continually walk
into the face of a gun or something else, or draw his gun, or take police
action in a crime when in his own judgment it may not be the proper
thing to do. That is the only way I answered the Congressman and that
is exactly what I said then and that is exactly what I mean now.
We consider for the purposes of administration an officer's on-duty
time is that time he is paid for. This is by virtue of a union contract.
We must consider those periods when he is not being paid in terms of
"off duty." He has the authority and the right to enforce the law but
it is not mandated he do that if, in effect, his own discretion tells him
better.
Mr. CoNYERs. Would the gentleman yield ?
Mr. Steiger. Yes.
Mr. CoNYERS. What is the doctrine governing this subject matter
in the Detroit Police Department ?
Mr. XicHOLS. I would presume it would be covered in the rules and
regulations of the department.
406
Mr. CoNYERS. Do you consider that the statements that you made
here this morning are consistent with the rules of the subject in that
document ?
Mr. Nichols. I would consider they would be consistent with my in-
terpretation of those rules ; yes, sir.
Mr. Rangel. Mr. Steiger.
Mr. STEmER. I would like to ask the commander a question. We heard
testimony from your comparable force in New York City that they
learned very quickly the high-crime hours as well as the high-crime
areas. Their high-crime hours, I believe, were from dusk to 1 a.m.,
2 a.m. Do you find that you deploy your people normally on a high-
crime hour density as well as an area density ?
Mr. Bannon. We are responding to our analysis of the street rob-
bery on a 2-hour basis. It is broken down into 2-hour patterns and
we operate strictly on the pattern of prior robberies there. So the
officers may be assigned to a given area from 6 to 8 p.m. That is a
high-pattern area and transferred into another area that runs from
10 to 12, or something of that nature. So it is not on a shift basis, but
on a 2-hour cycle.
Mr. Si-EiGER. In other words the answer is yes; you do equate, not
only the area but also the hour ?
Mr. Bannon. Absolutely. But we also have found out, much to
our surprise, that many of these robberies are taking place in broad
daylight. So that you say a high-crime time to include all crimes, you
may have that afternoon shift syndrome. But if you select only rob-
beries you may find they are spread out over a large segment of time.
Mr. Steiger. As a result of 2 years of this kind of activity, do you
find a shift in the high-crime area which would indicate a response to
the tactical force? What I am asking is, If a neighborhood normally
had a problem from 6 to 8, as you indicate, as a result of your penetra-
tion of that problem time and problem neighborhood has there been
a shift in the problem ?
Mr. Bannon. Yes. I think that I have to be a little more specific.
Since we are working on a pattern created by an individual, or group
of individuals, perpetrating robberies day after day, when we do
something that arrests that activity of those individuals that pattern
then stops, so we are no longer interested in that specific neighborhood.
So we move on.
So what you are saying about forcing a shift would be true if in
fact you did notliing about the people who were creating the pat-
tern. But if you do make the arrest, which we often do, either through
decoy phase or surveillance phase the pattern goes away until some-
body starts on another pattern.
Mr. Steiger. That was the basis of my reasoning that there would
be a demonstration of success of your mission if you had a change
in the pattern.
Mr. Bannon. You recognize, I am sure, Congressman, and so we
do, that we are not so naive we don't believe when you harden up one
target — and in essence we have hardened up the typical citizen -victim
street roberrv- — ^vou do soften up other targets ; and we have to look
to that.
Mr. Steiger. That has happened right in the District of Columbia.
We are not doing away with the crime ; we are shifting it around.
407
Have you found a significant pattern followed b}'- habitual offenders
in street crimes, as you do in pushers, or numbers dealers, or is street
crime more of an impulse sort of thing?
Mr. Baxnox. Essentially, we found an extremely high correlation
between street robbery and heroin addiction. We found not only can
'we pattern people on the basis of crime, but we also draw a zone
around the narcotic activity. So 3^ou do have a repetition there and
you do have a jiigh recidivism rate; yes.
Mr. XiCHOLs. 1 would think, too, sir ; the pattern of robbery is not
one that calls for a long, in-depth evaluation of the man for his in-
tended target or his intended place of business. Most of the time it is
a crime of opportunity. An individual or group of individuals will
get a gun and start cruising and say, "That looks like a good spot,"
and that is the only kind of prior ptamiing that goes into it. So it is
very difficult other than to statisticize the effect that might have on
one area.
The arrest, they could be policing several different areas at several
different times.
Mr. lUxGEL. ]Mr. Winn?
]Mr. WiNX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner, I think 3' ou can probably verify this statement here
on page 7. It says : "STRESS members have arrested a number of fugi-
tives sought by the Detroit Police Department and other agencies.*'
That is part of your statement, is it not ?
^Ir. Nichols. Yes.
^Ir. Wixx'. In othei- words, they work very closely with other mem-
bers of the police department ?
^Ir. Nichols. They work very, very closely with members of our
criminal investigation section. Very often, the local detective detach-
ment will advise STRESS officers of individuals for whom they hold
warrants and for whom they are looking, because the STRESS offi-
cers are on the street most of their time. They have very little admin-
istrative function and they do have a street capability in greater num-
bers for that type of operation than uniformed police would have be-
cause they are not being committed to the radio response.
One of the major problems with uniformed patrols is you don't get
tlie proper concentration because scout cars are constantly being called
to take on-site crime reports and many other things. These units
are dedicated to a specific mission and can devote themselves to that
mission.
]Mr. Wixx. You also have policemen walking the beat in the same
target areas that STRESS is working?
Mr. Nichols. Very often.
]Mr. Wixx-. You don't change that operation at all ?
Mr. Nichols. No, sir.
Mr. WixN. Do you enforce it when STRESS personnel move into a
target area ? Do you jout more foot patrolmen in ?
Mr. Nichols. No, sir. We attempt to leave the patrol patterns ex-
actly the same way they were. In some instances, if there is a wide-
spread problem, we may use a tactical force at one end of the area and
STRESS at the other end and interchange them. But by and large we
attempt to maintain the status quo.
95-15S— 73— pt. 1 27
408
_ Mr. Winn. You say you have fewer than 100 men. I am a little
mtrigued as to why. You keep the niunber of men assigned to STEESS
such a secret. I would think from a public relations standpoint if the
people m these areas were led to believe you had thousands of men it
would be better.
Mr. ^""iCHOLS I will be completely candid with you. I think part of
the impact of STRESS is, as one of you gentlemen developed a ^^ew
minutes ago a psychological impact. I think if the average person
knew exactly how few officers there were out there we would be depviv-
mg ourselves of the major effect, which is a deterrent effect
I may not be right, but this is the way I view this.
, Mr. Winn. I don't know whether you are right or wrong, but I was
m the public relations field for several years, and I believe I would
lead the public to believe I had thousands of officers out there
Mr. Nichols. That is what we are attempting to do by not divulo-ino-
the number. We are attempting to avoid statisticizing that particular
tJimg. It IS a relatively small unit, numerically speaking.
Mr. Winn. I understand your approach. I just think we view it
differently.,
According to your testimony STRESS officers made 633 arrests for
felony crimes during the period from the program's inception throuo-h
December 31, 1972. So you are gettmg some work done.
Mr. Nichols. We are getting a great deal of work done and we are
also getting a high percentage of warrants per arrests than other
normal units arrive at. This, primarily, is because very often the
officers are m position to witness the crime and reinforce the com-
plainants' statements.
Mr. Winn. Well the main idea of these hearings has been to brin^
police departments before this committee to testify on the constructive
programs that are bem^ installed in the departments across the coun-
try, so we can see what is good about the police departments and what
they are doing constructivelv.
I am very disappointed tliat we, for some reason, got most of our
time off on what I feel is dirty linen-it may be political, I don't Ltiow
that— about the Detroit Police Department. Could there be some ele-
ment ot the Detroit area that would prefer not to have STRESS
among their people ?
Mr. Nichols. I think that is probably the understatement of the
^^?r" ^fr "^^^ there are those elements. They are very vociferous
Mr. Winn. And this proves it could not be political.
Nr. Nichols. Yes, sir.
Mr. Winn. It doesn't necessarily have to tie in with any elections.
Mr. Nichols. It doesn't have to, but you asked me for an honest
^^S^^^x.^^ ^^ ^^^®^* opinion is it has been accentuated by that.
Mr. VViNN. I appreciate your honest opinions. I don't thiiji there is
anyone up here that came here this morning to try to crucifv vou or
trick you m your testimony. I think there is definite concern^on the
part of every Member of Congress that sits up here this morning, and
also the other Members that are not here. We do have a job. We have
crime increasing m many areas across the Nation
We are hoping to pick your brains, and those of your officers and of
your undercover agents, to see if we can present to the public a better
system of law enforcement for the Nation. I appreciate your being
409
here. You are very candid with the committee. I am sure not only De-
troit, but other cities have their own problems. I am glad to hear that
the two STRESS officers accompanying you feel the morale is good.
I am sure that they are dedicated men as far as what they think their
own job within STRESS and within the department might be.
Commissioner, do you pay the officers any additional pay for serv-
ing on the STRESS units i
Mr. XiCHOLS. No, sir. The only extra duty pay that is aiforded any
officer in the Detroit Police Department is the communications officers.
Officers in STRESS, narcotics, or any other special assignment, in-
cluding our night details, are given no extra pay allowances or special
privileges.
Mr. Winn. How many years have you been in law enforcement ?
Mr. Nichols. Thirty-one years and 3 months.
Mr. Winn. With 31 years and 3 months* experience, do you think
STRESS is doing the job you hoped it would do, and do you expect it
to continue ^
Mr. Nichols. Yes. I will tell this honorable committee exactly what
I have told our public. STRESS appears to be contributing to a re-
duction in the crime, for which it was put together to address itself.
So long as that crime is there, so long as the unit functions within the
law, so long as the crime appears to be responsive to it, then I would
see no reason to disband it.
I will say this in ail candor, that there have been changes mnde in the
past and I would envision there may be changes in the future bated
upon the demography as we see it at the particular time. I am not
adamant in my position; I merely say I believe STRESS has been
a viable force to combat that crime that is most heinous, most fearful,
and leaves the victun with the greatest amount of trauma. Yes, sir ; I
do.
Mr. Winn. You go along with that, Mr. Martin? His answer is
that it is doing the job.
Mr. Martin. I think it is doing a good job, sir.
Mr. Winn. And you would keep STRESS in operation?
]Mr. Martin. And I think, also, if there is any new innovations that
could help us, that we would adopt them.
Mr. Winn. Do you go along with that ?
Mr. Ricci. Yes ; I do, sir.
Mr. Winn. As officers, do you have any meetings with other men
from time to time, not only your teams, but the other men? You
made the statement that you don't get to see the other team of officers
of STRESS. xVnother team of four men, as I understand it.
]Mr. ]\Iartin. We occasionally have social affairs among ourselves.
^Ir. V^iNN. Do you have official meetings, where you can have input
into the commissioner's office and the higher echelon, of what changes
you think should be made ?
Mr. Martin. The commissioner's door is always open to all of his
police officers — always.
Mr. Winn. Do tlie fellows go in and talk to him ?
Mr. JMartin. I have gone in and seen the commissioner a number
of times.
My crew chief, Virgil Starkey, has been razing me quite a bit about
my association with Coimnander Bannon. And every day when I go
to work, he says, "Have you had a phone call from Jim?" And he
410
usually says, he makes it sound like a plione rang, "Ron? Jiin. Jim?
Ron. Are j'ou coming over for lunch? How is John, Ron?" That sort
of thing. Things on a first-name basis.
Mr. Winn. So the morale sounds like it is very good.
Mr. Martin. It is, sir.
Mr. Winn. Does criticism from organizations or the press ha^'e a
tendency to disturb the morale of the officers ?
Mr. Martin. No, sir ; we just get a little closer.
Mr. Winn. It sounds like some of the soldiers in the war.
Mr. Martin. Better ; like the Marines. Even better, sir.
ISIr. Winn. Any of you might want to answer this, particularly the
commissioner. l^H^y do you think, other than the accidental episode
with the sheriff's deputies, your relationship with the press is so bad ?
Don't you have a public relations officer with the police departinent?
Mr. Nichols. I really don't think the relationship with the press is
so bad. What I do see is the fact that STRESS has become a, I guess
it would be safe in saying, nationwide symbol now. And any time any-
thing happens the press will seize on it. In many instances, it is good ;
in some instances it is not good.
I think what we have is a situation where the press is capitalizing on
something that is of news value. IMost of the articles, I think, if you
can wade your wav into them, are fairly objecti^^e. But it is the head-
line that does the tTick, "STRESS Officer Involved.'' And I think most
people are headline readers.
Mr. Winn. I don't think there is any doubt about that. But as a for-
mer member of the press I know they jump into the glamorous things.
But usually, there is an out-and-out attempt made by the department
to get together with the press and say, "Look, we need your help in
this case. You are right and we were wrong," or whatever the situation
might be. If this is done I think you find they will work with you. I
think 3' ou badly need the press in the Detroit area.
Sure, people read headlines basically. I would like to make the sug-
gestion you might tiw to worlv out some kind of situation wliere you
could sit down with those that cover the news stories — it is pretty hard
to sit down with the headline writers because that is an entirely
different bunch of people — and discuss the situation, because you need
the press to do the job. You need the community to do the job.
Mr. Chairman, we are running out of time. I yield the balance of
my time.
Mr. Rangel. We will conclude the examination of this panel with
some final questions from Congressman Conyers and counsel, keeping
in mind the committee has a distingTiished panel of police officers from
St. Louis which it intends to hear before luncheon recess.
Congressman Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
Everyone who complains about the operation of STRESS is not
necessarily politically motivated. I presume we can begin without even
discussing that. And they may not always be vocal elements; there
may be a lot of quiet people who do not like STRESS.
Mr. Nichols. Absolutely. There may also be a lot of quiet people
who do, sir.
Mr. Conyers. I am willing to agree with that. You wouldn't call
the Wolverine Bar Association a vocal element in the community,
would you ?
411
Mr. Nichols. A vocal element, yes. They are vocal.
Mr. CoNTERS. They are a good bunch oi lawyers ?
Mr. Nichols. Lef s define the terms, Mr. Coiiyers, if I may. When
I say "vocal element," I mean those individuals who have sufficient
horsepower and sufficient access to the press to say something and
have it listened to. That is what I mean by vocal. I am not impugning
their motives nor anything else, nor their capability as attorneys or
judges, whoever they may be.
Mr. CoxYERS. You are using "vocal elements" in a derogatory sense?
Mr. Nichols. I didn't intend it to be derogatory. I don't think there
necessarily has to be that connotation. I would consider myself a vocal
element of the police profession.
Mr. CoNYERs. It is not one of the vocal elements in the derogatory
sense, but they have been critical of some of the operations conducted
by STRESS.
Mr. Nichols. They have been critical of specific areas in the use of
fatal force. Their criticality directs itself primarily to the fact
their argument basically is with the law as personified by the STRESS
operation.
Mr. CoNYERS. That is a pretty valid observation on the part of mem-
bers of the bar, wouldn't you think ?
Mr. Nichols. I cannot answer for members of the bar. I am not an
attorney, sir.
Mr. CoNYERs. Then the Michigan Commission on Civil Rights, a
State organization, has been critical of STRESS ?
Mr. Nichols. They have been critical of areas of STRESS and we
have corrected those areas where their criticality has been expressed.
Mr. CoNYERS. So, we can understand why the media may sometimes
write articles that mav not always be favorable to the conduct of
officers in the STRESS units ?
Mr. Nichols. Certainly, we understand it, and I accept it.
Mr. CoNYERs. And you can understand why a State judge held the
breaking and entering into houses by STRESS officers unconstitu-
tional, since it did not conform to the law. You can understand that,
too, can't you?
Mr. NicHOLB. I can understand that is his prerogative as a judo-e.
I may not agree with it, as also a fellow individual who must live
within the law.
Mr. CoNYERS. So. given those circumstances, you can see whei-e a
grv-^at number of citizens might be very seriously concerned about the
legality and validity of the operation of STRESS in the Detroit com-
munity, and whether it is operating within the law ? Since it has been
in the courts, it has been criticized by State governmental units, its
members have been arrested and charged with murder, bar associations
are critical, and this doas not really mean that they are trying to wipe
out STRESS. It means they have some criticism about whether they
are getting more safety for their dollar, or danger and possibly death.
Would you agi'ee with that. Commissioner ?
Mr. Nichols. Not necessarily : no, sir.
Mr. CoNYERS. Where do j^ou disagree with it ?
Mr. Nichols. I disagree with the point of view; and I would say
each individual under our democracy is entitled to his point of view,
but I do not say I nuist subscribe to it.
412 (
]\Ir. CoNYERS. What point of view do you disa^ee with ?
]Vir. Xtctiols. I disa,o;ree with the point of view they are not getting
their dollar value. I disagree with the point of view it was illegal en-
tr-v. I disagree with the point of view the operation involves itself with
illegal tactics. I disagree with the point of view that the decoy opera-
tion is in effect entrapment. Those are the points of view I disagree
with.
Mr. CoNYTiRS. So you disagree with the courts and bar associations,
civil ri.ohfs units, and other civil rights organizations as a matter of
exercising your rights ?
Mr. XiCHOLS. As a matter of looking at the thing as a police officer
and. yes. in a manner of speaking, within my rights.
Mr. CoNYERS. Let me just fina,lize this. ^Ir. Chairman. I know time
is running out.
We were talking about the reduction of crime bv 15 percent in
Detroit as a result of STKESS.
Mr. Nichols. Roughly, 15 percent. It is slightly under 15.
Mr. Co]srYET?.s. How do we establish any causal connection between
its alleged reduction in crime and the operation of the STRESS unit?
Do you have some way of doing that ?
Mr. Nichols. Yes : I think we can extrapolate a certain amount of
credibility to the statistics. Statistics show something like this: There
were 28,000 robberies, there are now 17,000 robberies. During the
period of STRESS we have reduced that crime about 6.000. Numer-
ically speaking it was one of the most predominant crimes. So I think
that when we take those facts we can reasonably assume STRESS has
had a fair impact. I will not deny the fact that our sophistication in
the area of narcotics enforcement certainly has had an impact.
I would not deny the fact that increased public support may not have
had an impact. I will not deny the fact, in deference to Mr. Winn, that
the newspapers may not have had an impact. But I think as long as we
are dealing in theory, we can reasonably say that STRESS has had a
prof oiuid effect on it.
]\Ir. CoxTERS. Hasn't the murder rate gone up in Detroit ?
IMr. Nichols. Yes. the murder rate has gone up in Detroit.
I don't see what that has to do with STRESS. Mr. Convers.
l\fr. CoxYERS. Well, doesn't it have something to do with the reduc-
tion of crime?
INIr. Nichols. It has something to do with the fact that we have a
syndrome in which the average murder takes place in the confines of
a home, or some private place, that the individuals are generally killed
with the handgun, that the individuals are generallv killed at the peak
of an emotional charge, and that handofun violations, we do not be-
lieve as police officers, are treated with the sauie decree of seriousness
that they should be. And I still fail to see what this has to do with
the crimes that are preventable by police.
My officers cannot alter the makeup of the human mind. And when
you have an individual at the peak of that emotion and the means of
snuffing out a life easily and readily accessible. I submit we will have
that.
Mr. CoNTERS. In the first 3 months of 1973. nine Detroit citizens
died at the hands of their police department. This figure represents
6.5 deaths per 1,000 Detroit police officers. Is that a little high to you?
413
jNIr. Nichols. I don't know because I never made any attempt to
view statistics from other cities.
Mr. CoNYERS. I want you to know it is the highest rate in the United
States of America.
iNIr. Nichols. Would the good Congressman tell me what the rate
of policemen shot in comparison to other cities is ?
Mr. CoxYERS. No ; I do not have statistics on that.
Mr. Nichols. I would like to submit this same correlation might be
true there.
]Mr. CoNYERS. Do you have statistics to submit ?
Mr. Nichols. No, sir ; I don't.
Mr. CoNYERS. When you do, and if you do, why don't you send
them in to this committee and we will incorporate them ancl the con-
clusions you draw from it, Commissioner, into the record.
jSIr. Nichols. I would be delighted to do just that.
[The information requested was not received.]
Mr. CoNYERS. Mr. Chairman, I was not here during your previous
hearings, in which you had the New York police chief in to discuss
the comparable STRESS unit in New York. But I think that the testi-
mom^ showed that no one has been killed by that unit, that no one has
even been wounded, and that they do not have nearlj^ the degree of
controversy raging among the citizens of New York over that unit.
It would seem to me, somehow, that this committee ought to be able
to correlate this drastic difference of operations and see if it can per-
haps find out what other cities are doing. I do not know if that is part
of your purposes here.
Mr. Rangel. This committee does intend to compare the testimony
with other law enforcement agencies.
INIr. CoNYERs. Do you believe that gives you some cause to review
STRESS performance with Commissioner Murphy, who, incidentally,
was one of your predecessors in the Detroit Police Department, as you
well know? Do you believe that suggests that there may be a great
deal of validity to some of the concerns by the so-called vocal elements
in Detroit and around Michigan, in and out of the law enforcement
lousiness, about some of the tactics and procedures used by STRESS ?
Mr. Nichols. It Avould influence me to ascertain if there are several
other variables that are anywhere close. I think that to make a broad
statement like that with as little information as I have available —
possibly the good Congressman may have more — demography enters
into it, State law enters into it, the number of men available, the num-
ber of guns in the community enter into it. A great many factors
should be considered. But I assure you we have continually corre-
sponded with other cities who are using a concept close to this and
we will continue to do this.
As I said before, we are not adamant, we are not attempting to sell
the concept to anybody. We merely appear here to tell you exactly
what we have done and what we think the results are.
]Mr, CoNYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very much for
allowing me to participate in this hearing. I also want to thank our
commissioner of police and his top officers who joined us here this
morning.
We obviously could not be dispositive of the subject in this short
time. This would require a number of hearings and far more time
41
spent on individual m^ban police departments than jowr committee
can allow.
I also add my thanks to Commissioner Nichols and all of the men
who have joined him here, because I think these kind of public hear-
ings are vital to insure the support of the community. Although it
has not been mentioned here, Mr. Chairman, I think we need to re-
member that 5,000 policemen can never effectively control the crime
situation in the high crime urban community of Detroit in 1973, vith
1.6 million people, unless you are receiving community support.
I think these kind of discussions that are open, free, and unfettered
will lead the Detroit Police Department to investigations and greater
understanding of the New York antici"ime r.nit and others, and will
result in continuing modifications and, hopefully, improvements in
their operation.
So I say, sincere tlianks to Commissioner Nichols for the way he
has conducted himself with such candor this morning.
Mr. Nichols. Thank you, sir.
Mr. E ANGEL. Thank you. Congressman Conyers, for taking time to
sit with us.
Mr. Winn?
Mr. Winn. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask one question.
With the criticism you received from the Wolverine group and the
newspapers, have any of these organizations asked you to drop
STEESS, throw it out of the program ?
Mr. Nichols. I think most of them by their rhetoric would indicate
they would be much happier if we did. We have been invested by
petitions to drop STEESS, but in all fairness we also have stacks and
stacks and stacks of petitions in support of STEESS, Mr. Winn.
Mr. Winn. Have they asked to meet with you and discuss the prob-
lems?
Mr. Nichols. We have met periodically with various elements of
the community in candid discussions of STEESS in those periods of
time when there was not a STEESS trial before a judge. We neces-
sarily had a moratorium during the period in time when Officer Mar-
tin was before the courts. We had a period of silence when the entire
STEESS concept was being tested in front of a court. And this was
only to protect the integrity of the cases.
We have been as candid with the public as we have here and I would
like to say, if I may, to respond to Congressman Conyers' remarks, that
we have atempted to be candid. We appeared with Officer Martin be-
cause we didn't want it to appear we had anything we were attempting
to hide. We believe we are doing right. We believe our officers on the
STEESS program are much of the same cut of the two gentlemen you
see here, fine young examples of good, honest policemen.
And I would submit that if I have said anything to which anybody
took offense, please accept my apologies.
Mr. Winn. Mr. Bannon, did you have something to add ?
Mr. Bannon. Just this. Congressman. Many of the things that have
been raised here — I am with MCCE, Mayor's Commission on Ci\'il
Eights — many of the issues Mr. Conyers was referring to, go back to
the inception of STEESS, which was much more violent than it has
been after the changes made by the unit, the organizations that you
allude to. I think there has been a dialog, it has been a successful dialog.
415
because we have made structural changes^ responsive to those criti-
cisms, I don't think we should leave you with the impression we have
the same organization today that we had when those criticisms were
laid.
Mr. WiNX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Eangel. Congressman Steiger.
Mr. Steiger. No questions.
Mr. Rangel. Counsel may proceed to conclude the inquiry.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Commissioner, earlier this week. Chief Winston Churchill of
the Indianapolis Police Department indicated before this committee,
that in his judgment as a police administrator the public perhaps
played as irnportant a part in controlling crime as the police depart-
ment. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Nichols. I would certainly say that any police administrator
of any city, large or small, who does not recognize, as what was so
eioquently"^put by Congressman Conyers, that the public is the most
important element in the entire police relationship and ability of the
department to control crime, certainly has not got it together.
Because without that public support, without the public approba-
tion, without the public appearances in court, without them no police
department, however large, could ever hopefully manage a metropoli-
tan area.
Mr. Lynch. So your position, the position to continue STRESS,
is not one you have lightly taken without consideration of what im-
plications it may have on continued public support within Detroit?
Mr. NiCHOLS.Not at all, because I am the recipient and I would be
glad to send the Congress hundreds of such letters if it wants to see
them, that come from the very individuals who are in the areas heavily
hit by crime. Their stories tell me an entirely different one. I recognize
there"^ can be probably no progress without a certain amount of con-
jflict, and we have attempted to minimize that conflict. We have at-
tempted to modify, as Bannon said, many of the areas where we felt
the concept should be modified.
But by and large we feel the public does support it, and that is the
several publics we serve, including, we believe, a majority of the black
public.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Commissioner, certainly the testimony you gave
earlier indicating that 85 murders of citizens were com_mitted during 1
year, presumably in the act of robbery, was a factor in the establish-
ment of this unit. Since it has been established, according to your testi-
mony, 18 citizens or residents of Detroit have been killed by police
officers, again, presumably, in the act of committing serious crimes or
felonies, and a number of Detroit police officers have been killed. I
think there is a general concern about the levels of violence associated
with this operation.
Commissioner Murphy, incidentally, did testify at length a1)out his
citywide anticrime section. Detroit does have a lower crime rate than
the city of New York. In New York the robbery rate, for your informa-
tion, is one of the highest in the country. It is 790 per 100,000. The
rate in 1971 in Detroit was 605 per 100,000. Detroit, of course, is much
smaller. Commissioner Murphy has 4.5 policemen per 1,000 inhabit-
ants. I wonder if you have a comparable figure at hand ?
416
Def Ion mo' wf '-1 ^''' ^'""^ \^ '^° ''^^' ^^'" ^^^^ '^22 police officers
inhabitant ' ™*^ mathematics would be 3.2 police per 1,000
Mr. Lynch It was the commissioner's testimony that his citvwide
fTi'i,'o^fion''''^'T' V^^'"^ ^^'^ P^^'^^^ ^^ 1 y^^^' 19^2' had effected more
than 0,600 arrests. Service revolvers, I believe his testimony indicated,
were not fired by his officers, although they may have been drawn
83 percent of those arrests were for felonies, 750 for armed robbery, 450
drawn"^ ''^'''''"' ^"^ ''''^^^' ^^^""^ '^ ^ '^^^^ comparison to be
I only have one other comment. Commissioner. We have been in-
lormed by the chief legal adviser of the International Association of
Chiefs of Police that while there is not a definite policy, it is their
understanding that policemen in most cities in this country are con-
sidered to be on duty 24 hours a day and that if the onlv reason for
not taking action by an off-duty officer is that he has considered him-
self to be off duty, he would, in their judgment, be subject to dis-
fe^oJr"""^ '^ especially so if the matter concerned were a
I wonder if you could be kind enough to have your police leoal
adviser, or someone m your office, send to this committee Detroit's
definite policy in that regard, sir ?
Mr Nichols. I will say again what I said before, that the inter-
pretation IS a question of semantics. Wlien an officer is off dutv it
means he is not being paid. It means that he does not have anv man-
date to perform that act, that he has the same element of discre-
tion that he would have at any other time, and that in that configura-
tion, he cannot be considered as an instrumentality of the unit to
which he is assigned.
That is what I attempted to convey and that is what I say again.
Mr. Rangel. Commissioner, we fully appreciate your answer. I
think what we are trying to do is get a copy of the regulations to
see whether it is m line with other major cities.
[The regulations referred to above were not received in time for
printing.] ^
Mr. Nichols. Fine.
Mr. Lynch. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rangel. We will conclude this inquiry by thanking you. Com-
missioner Nichols, and Commander Bannon, and the officers that
were brought here. I do hope you were not misunderstood. Com-
missioner. We hope you understand that the point of the questions
was to bring out some of the problems you have, as well as the degree
ot success, so that you might share this with other Member? of
I thank you very much on behalf of Chairman Pepper and the rest
of the members of the connnittee and Congress for talring time out
to share your views and your program with us.
Thank you very much.
f ollows -f ^'^"™^''* ^^^^^ December 31, 1972, previously mentioned.
417
Detroit (Mich.) Police Department Analysis of STRESS, Submitted by
John F. Nichols, Commissioner
(Statistics including December 31, 1972)
BACKGROUND
One of tiie major elements in the overall increase in crime in Detroit in
recent years lias been the felony known as robbery, in which the criminal con-
fronts the victim with violence or the threat of violence.
While all major crimes in the city increased 32 percent from 1968 to 1970,
robberies increased 67 percent. Of the seven major crime categories (murder,
rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny, and auto theft). Robbery alone ac-
counted for 24 percent of the overall increase between 1968 and 19 <0.
In actual numbers of crimes committed in Detroit, robbery ranks third be-
hind burglary and larceny, and first among crimes in which f(irce or the
threat of force is involved.
To deal with this most prevalent of the crimes of violence, a special opera-
tion was devised and announced with the Detroit Police Department on Janu-
ary 13, 1971. Its mission was stated succinctly in its acronymic code name,
"STRESS." meaning "Stop The Robberies — Enjoy Safe Streets."
The nature of the mission was to operate in plain clothes in such a way as
to "merge" with the environment, and to appear to be the type of person that
a thug seeking a victim would be likely to confront. Officers would be expected
to work in teams. One member of the team on occasion might be expected to
pose as a prospective robbery victim.
January 18. 1971, the first arrest was made by one of the earliest volunteers.
April 5, STRESS operation results were reported publicly for the first time.
RECRUITING
Initially, officers assigned to the STRESS operation were selected primarily
from the precinct support unit (PSU). one of three special task forces within
the department's patrol division. As its names suggested, the PSU of about 80
men, reinforces the precincts on response and patrol assignments when the
work load is exceptionally high, or pays particular attention to certain types
of high-incidence crimes.
Men are assigned to the PSU itself on a volunteer basis. As experience with
the STRESS operation increased and its use was expanded, men volunteering
specifically for STRESS have gradually filled the entire complement of the
PSU, so that to all intents and purposes, the precinct support unit and the
STRESS task force are one and the same.
To launch the program, a description of the new operation and its objectives
and risks are circulated throughout the department, and those inteivsted neve
encouraged to seek a transfer to STRESS. As transfer requests were received,
each volunteer's record was carefully studied.
Elements of the record of special interest were the volume of arrests, the
number of arrests resulting in eventual prosecution, the types of duty prev-
iously performed, any citations, disciplinary action or citizens' complaints,
physical health, and service rating, particularly in the categories of quality of
work, attitude, initiative, judgment, cooperation with fellow officers, and com-
munity contacts.
The volunteer's immediate supervisors and the men he has worked with are
interviewed. Finally, STRESS supervisors interview the candidate and make
their decision as to his suitability for the assignment. In addition, each applicant
is given a psychological examination and is personally evaluated. About one-
fourth of the applicants are accepted.
Since the operation was announced, about 800 officers from various units have
volunteered for STRESS. About one-half of that total have been screened. Of
those screened about one-fourth are accepted. A considerable waiting list of
applicants remains. Some STRESS officers have been promoted out of the oper-
ation, while others have voluntarily transferred out or been reassigned by the
STRESS command after an evaluation of their on-the-job performance.
[At present, nine of the assigned STRESS officers are black. This figure fluc-
uates widely due to varying physical needs.]
The principal source of personnel has been the precinct support unit, however,
there are applicants from many other units in the department.
418
Of tiie present complement, about 60 percent have from 5 years to 17 years
experience and the remaining 40 percent have from 2 to 5 years.
Of the approximately 4,000 patrolmen in the entire department, the experience
level runs : 55 percent with 5 or more years, 33 percent between 1 and 5 years, and
12 percent less than a year.
TRAINING
Officers are briefed by STRESS supervisors on a variety of functions : posing
as potential robbery victims, response to "silent sentinel" alarm systems installed
in selected businesses in high crime areas, plainclothes mobile and foot patrol,
and uniformed duty in backup ears. Although the name STRESS has been popu-
larly associated exclusively with the so-called target operation, officers in the
program rotate through the other assignments.
In preparation for "target" operations, they are briefed on the specific types
of crimes and the types of victims most frequently accosted in the areas they are
to patrol. STRESS officers have posed as pedestrians, indigenous to the neigh-
borhood— and all that implies as to dress and appearance — cabdrivers, delivery-
men, bill collectors, newsboys, and just plain citizens. A few have donned wigs
and dresses to walk in areas W'here purse snatching has been running high.
After general briefing on overall operations, including warnings on alertness
and personal safety, and refre.sher briefing on the law and department policy
affecciug police use of weapons, volunteers are assigned to work on specific teams
with more experienced officers.
Tlie W'Ork of new volunteers, in particular, is watched closely and evaluated
by supervision. Critiques are held at daily rollcall. Briefings for a specific day's
mission include the latest crime reports, updated daily by computer and plotted
on patrol area maps as to location and time of occurence.
OPERATIONS
The "target" phase of STRESS operations is conducted by plainclothes crews,
some in unmarked cars and some in civilian-type vehicles— trucks, cabs, and cars
of a model and body style not usually associated with police duty.
The crews may be two. three, or four men, depending on the mission and
availability of personnel. The most experienced officer is designated as the crew
chief. The most popular operating periods are between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., and 8
p.m. to 4 a.m., although different work spans may be assigned, depending on
the nature of the particular crime problem being attacked.
Geographically, a crew will be assigned to a district covering two to four pre-
cincts. While the normal precinct scoiit cars are patrolling their scout car terri-
tories, the STRESS unmarked cars are checking the specific streets or neighbor-
hoods showing a high current rate of street crimes.
Depending upon street "activity" — observation of the number and kinds of
individuals on the street in a neighborhood at a given time — the STRESS crew,
at its own discretion, may decide to "drop off a target," that is, place one of its
members on foot in the street situation, in an appropriate disguise. Cover is pro-
vided by other members of the crew, on foot or in cars.
To make the operation effective, covering officers have to remain far enough
away from the crew's target member to avoid exposure.
Tills heightens the element of risk, not only for the officer posing as a victim,
but also for any teammates covering on foot. There have been instances in which
the covering ofBcer, also in disguise, has been accosted while the intended victim
has been unmolested.
Depending on the time of day and ethnic characteristics of the neighborhood,
the race of the officer may give him away, so this is an important considera-
tion in team composition. At times, even a black and white pair of officers might
attract attention. In some predominantly black neighborhoods, even a black
officer might be conspicuous in certain disguises at certain times.
Many STRESS arrests have resulted from criminal response to this kind of
operation. However, far more apprehensions have resulted from the presence of
officers on or near the scene of the crime, operating as surveillance units, unrec-
ognized by the criminal. Occasionally, prospective attackers seemingly recog-
nized something unusual about the disguised officers and avoided contact. In an
instance or two. a disguised police officer has been surprised to receive a friendly
warning from "street people" that the "man" was in the area, or "watch out. he
looks like a STRESS copper."
419
BESTJIiTS
Since STRESS officers were first assigned to the street, they have witnessed
or been the target of on-the-spot street crimes in more than 70 separate cases.
Each case involving anywhere from one to five perpetrators.
In addition, the oflScers have observed and made arrests in numerous other
"off-street" crimes, including residential and business burglaries, possession of
stolen property, auto thefts, arson, murder, carrying concealed weapons, narcotic
sale and possession, and a variety of misdemeanors and traffic offenses.
They have arrested a number of fugitives sought by the Detroit Police Depart-
ment and other agencies. They also have obtained search warrants and conducted
narcotic raids based on information developed from street activity.
STRESS officers have made .5,633 arrests for felonies or misdemeanors during
the period the program has been in operation through December 31, 1972. These
resulted in 1.63.5 felony warrants and 413 misdemeanor warrants. Others are pend-
ing. Of those arrested, 503 previously had outstanding warrants against them,
a total of 372 juveniles were detained, and 1,491 guns were confiscated, 1,253 of
which were handguns.
Of the total arrests, over 2,551 have been referred to court or other crimial jus-
tice agencies, many more have been turned over to other law enforcement agen-
cies and Federal, State, and local parole or probation authorities, and others have
been cited to traffic and ordinance courts.
Since the inception of STRESS in January 1971. robberies for the subsequent
11 months decreased 10 of the months and showed an overall decrease of 9.9
percent. The percentage of decrease for the year 1972 was 17.3.
Robberies in January 1973 were 9.9 percent fewer than the same month a year
ago, and for the entire year to date are down 17.3 percent. This compares with a
67 percent increase from 1968 to 1970, a marked improvement.
In the course of the STRESS operation, two white officers and one black officer
have been killed and some 100 other members were wounded or injured.
Sixteen criminals — 15 black :ind 1 white — were shot to death by STRESS nrieers
and 58 were injured. This includes those who jumped out of cars, windows, etc.
('oincideutly, police robbery figures for the year indicate that 89.8 percent of
the known perpetrators were black, 5 to 6 percent white, and the rest unknown.
Let no one have any illusions about the violence of the mugger, the strong-arm
artist, the armed bandit, who elect often as their victims, the weak, the drunken,
the aged — those least likely to offer resistance.
Let no one have any illusions as to the wave of misery and injury left in their
wake — almost 500 injured, many elderly victims sentenced for life to a wheelchair
or hospital bed.
Already 112 victims are known to have been killed by criminals in the course
of robberies in the year 1972.
USE OF FIREABMS BY POLICE
The policy of the Detroit Police Department on use of firearms by police officers
is derived from State law, section 71, Michigan Criminal Law and Procedure —
amount and use of force says : "an officer may use such force as seems to him to
be necessary in forcibly arresting an offender, or in preventing his escape after
arrest. Both officers and private persons seeking to prevent a felon's escape must
exercise reasonable care to prevent his escape without doing personal violence,
and it is only when killing is necessary to prevent his escape that the killing is
justified."
The Detroit Pftlice ]Manual (ch. 4, sec. 28. "Use of Firearms in Police Ac-
tion") instructs Detroit police officers as follows:
"Revolvers are issued to insure that each officer has the best means of pro-
tecting himself from death or serious bodily harm while performing the duties
of a law enforcement officer.
"There can be no question concerning its use for these purposes. What the
officer may do for his own protection or defense he is authorized and required
to do for a fellow officer, a citizen, or a prisoner.
"Firing the revolver to prevent the escape of persons known to have com-
mitted the crime of murder, rape, robbery, burglary, and arson is justified
when, in the sound discretion of the officer, it appears to be the only means of
preventing the felon's escape.
"However, under such circumstances, just as the law recognizes degrees of
severity in crimes by providing a minimum and maximum sentence for a par-
420
ticTi'ar crime, the officer about to fire liis revolver should carefully plan this
aeti'^n and recognize its severity and possible consequences, particularly in
those cases wher.> the crime committed did not result in personal injury.
"Firing the revolver cannot be justified v.hen used as a warning device, nor
can it be justified when used for apprehending persons suspected of committing
a crime or persons fleeing from the scene of crimes other than murder, rape,
robbery, burglary, arson, or the like."
Department Training and Information Bulletin 53, April 30. 1968. interprets
both the State law and department policy as follows :
". . . The use of the revolver is confined only to those crimes of extremely
serious nature — murder, rape, robbery, burglary, and arson, or the like. Here
the criterion is clearly indicated : there should be no doubt in the officers mind
as to the guilt of the fleeing felon. Even then, the officer must give some con-
sideration to the severity of the crime, and the danger of injuring an innocent
person.
"Before firing a shot, an officer must consider the fact that regardless of what
a man has done — multimurder or what have you — the State of Michigan has
no capital punishment. The stresses of our en\'ironment at the present time de-
mand that a continuing emphasis be placed on the seiiousness of taking a life.
"Michigan State law clearly states that every effort should be made to effect
the arrest by peaceful means whenever possible. Aggression on the part of the
felon to resist arrest, or to escape from custody, will justify the use of force
by an officer, only in sufficient quantity to effectively overcome the resistance.
Under these circumstances, the officer would be justified in iising his firearm
when confronted with an armed resistance, or when he is threatened with
serious body injury. The law does not justify the use of force when no
resistance has been offered, and when no intention to escape has been indicated."
It is apropos at this time to deal with the subject of entrapment, which has
been offered as an arg-ument against STRESS.
"To constitute entrapment, an officer, by law. must instigate a criminal act
which would not have occurred to the perpetrator except for the actions of
the officer. To hold that police officers in civilian style of dress constitute entrap-
ment is to take the ludicrous position that all victims of crime are guilty of
entrapment, because if they hadn't been there the crime would not have occurred."
This is a quotation from a letter written by an executive of the Detroit Police
Department to the Public Letter Box.
In response, Justice Eugene F. Black, of the State supreme court, wrote the
author, "Tour statement of the law of entrapment is precise and accurate in
every way."
It would appear, then, that the element of entrapment does not exist in the
STRESS operation.
CITIZEN EESPONSE
The most visible citizen response to STRESS operations has be^n organized
protest of some groups that followed the shooting death of two teenagers, who
assaulted and robbed a STRESS officer on September 17, 1971. Unorganized
response has been overwhelmingly favorable.
Prior to that date, such mail that reached the police department dealing with
the STRESS operation, without exception, praised the operation and, in many
cases, asked for its expansion.
In the 10 days following the shooting incident of September 17. when public
attention was at a peak, the commissioner's office received 138 letters or cards
from citizens, 11 wires, and dozens of phone calls. All but two of the letter
writers supported STRESS (98.5 percent), including 19 citizens who specifically
identified themselves as black.
Of the wires, nine were in support and two were opposed. Of all the phone
calls, only one was in opposition.
Comments from black citizens included the following :
"We are a group of black people who support rights over wrong, not color.
We support this program 100 percent."
"Keep the STRESS units intact, and rest assured that you do have a lot of
silent support, like me. We ordinary black citizens fear reprisals and do not
pfttimes express our tme sentiments."
"I am black and have come very close to being another one of your police
statistics — at the hands of black youths. I do not favor the abolition of STRESS.
And any black who does, evidently has not been a victim of their brothers.
It is true the young men killed recently were leaving the scene of the crime
421
and no longer a threat to the officers ; hut they were still a threat to me or
any other individual they would decide to rob or attack."
"I am black and am no law and order man of the ilk of Vice President
Agnew, but I am no thief and robber either. Many other blacks are glad to
have policemen around regardless of their race, but for them to say so publicly
leaves them open for much criticism and harassment."
"It's time we started thinking about the victims of these assaults rather
than the criminal."
Two letter writers with personal experience of victimization wrote :
"My husband is still suffering from the results of his encounter almost a
year later. He has no sense of smell or taste and has had to have an operation.
Fortunately, however, he is still alive."
"♦ * * I ^as attacked, very near the parking lot in Palmer Park, by a group
of about eight to 10 Negro boys, and was being beaten until rescued by an
officer of the STRESS unit. There is no way for me to thank this officer for
his very resourceful and efficient handling of the incident in a way which
saved me from serious injury."
Finally, a black minister submitted to the police department the results of
a poll he took of citizens in his area, including 704 adults and 440 teenagers.
Of 1.144 people, 818, or 71.5 percent, supported STRESS and 326 opposed it.
Of the adults, 699 or 99.2 percent supported it, and 5 opposed it.
Of the teenagers, 119 were in support and 321, or 72.9 percent, were opposed.
AN EVALUATION
There is an old maxim in police work that the rapidity and certainty of
apprehension, and a speedy and fair adjudication in a court of law, is the most
effective deterrent to crime.
ill spite of the best intentions in the world on the part of concerned citizens,
judges, attorneys, police officers, lawmakers, and others of good conscience in
the criminal justice system, the various statistics of law enforcement suggest
thft this concept of deterrence becomes less and less "certain" over the years.
This factor oi: the certainty of apprehension is the principal external deter-
rent to the criminal. This is how he measures his risk, the odds he faces when
he gambles on a criminal career. • - ■-'
As mentioned before, this is why today's robbery opportunist picks on easy
marks — the elderly, the intirmed, the vulnerable. They are not only less physi-
cally capable of resisting him, but they are more apt to fail to appear or to
make confused and uncertain witnesses in a court case, so that even when
apprehended and charged, he stands a good chance of avoiding conviction.
By utilizing police officer volunteers to stand in place of potential victims,
the department has increased the degree of risk to the criminal, both as to
apprehension and final conviction in court.
STRESS has, to some degree, increased the certainty of apprehension for the
crime it is aimed against. This, combined with the public attention focused on
the operation, should make many a potential robber more reluctant to take the
crime risk than he would be if there were not such operation.
The use of fatal force in some arrests is a tragic necessity which neither the
department nor individual police officers take lightly. The department's rules
and guidelines could hardly be more explicit. Nevertheless, there is always the
element of final discretion in a street situation.
Once the officer is actually confronted with the visible or hidden threat of a
gun. a knife, or a physical attack, he has not time for conscious and deliberate
evaluation of the suspect's age. race, sex, or emotional condition, or the abstract
conceptualization of comparative punishments.
He has to operate on the evidence instantly apparent to him.
All his conditioning is directed to restraint in the use of firearms — to use only
as a last resort. But when this moment of last resort has arrived, the police
officer in such a situation knows that the difference between life and death for
himself or the person he confronts may be simply a matter of split-second timing.
He also must and should consider the danger and menace to life to which the
next victim of the fleeing felon might be subjected.
422
Make no mistake, it is the criminal, not the police officei-, who has named the
game ; that is, made the choice that has created the kind of macabre situation
in which everybody's life is, or seems to be, on the line — criminal, victim, and
police officer.
In pursuit situations, the officer has clear guidelines as to the nature of his
authority and responsibility.
STRESS officers would run less risks, and possibly supporting police would
be able to move faster to make arrests, if officers on STRESS assignments were
equipped with tiny, invisible radio transmitters. Such transmiters, concealed
in the clothing, would be kept open and monitored by support crews. Such
equipment is available, but the Detroit Police Department does not have a
supply for street use, nor the funding with which to acquire them.
There is no simplistic solution to the problem of protecting the police or the
citizenry from injury as the result of street activities. We in the department, have
experimented extensively in the area of body armor, which carries with it the
difficulty to maneuver, and does not protect with sufficient certainty.
We have also explored the possibility of mid-range weaponry. Technology has
failed to provide for police departments, a weapon which can be utilized to im-
mobilize or to halt a fleeing individual without the possibility of great physical
injury or death.
Perhaps the future holds better things, but to date, such weaponry is not
adaptable to the type of operations most police officers find themselves involved
in on a day-to-day basis. Such weapons were designed for adaption to situations
of mass confrontation and disorder and are far too bulky, cumbersome, and un-
certain for normal usage.
Thank you.
Mr. B.ANGEL. The committee will recess until 1 :30.
[Whereupon, at 12 :15 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at
1 :30 p.m., this same day.]
Afternoon Session
Mr. Steiger (presiding) . In the absence of the chairman, we will de-
clare the afternoon session open and ask that coimsel proceed with the
examination.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Members of the committee, I am happy to introduce to you at this
time. Col. Eugene J. Camp, chief of police of the St. Louis Police
Department. Chief Camp has been in his present capacity for 3 years
and has 36 years of service with the St. Louis Police Department. He
has been a member of the Missouri Law Enforcement Assistance Coun-
cil, the State planning agency under LEAA, and he holds a bachelor
of science degree from St. Louis University.
Colonel Camp, if you have a prepared statement, would you please
deliver it at this time.
STATEMENT OF EUGENE J. CAMP, CHIEF OF POLICE, ST. lOUIS, MO.,
POLICE DEPARTMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM ARM-
STRONG, SERGEANT, LABORATORY DIVISION; AND CHARLES
MUELLER, SERGEANT, JUVENILE DIVISION
Mr. Lynch. Do you have prepared remarks you would like to
address to the committee ?
423
Mr. Camp. Yes, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Please proceed.
Mr. Camp. Tlie program that I have here is the same you have. We
were asked to discuss our police laboratory technician program, the
evidence teclmician unit, and a progi-am we have in the juvenile field,
the teenage counseling for delinquents.
I was permitted to bring the people who supervise those programs.
On the evidence technician, I have Sgt. AVilliam Armstrong ; and the
counseling program, I have Sgt. Charles Mueller.
I think it is best that I let these people describe their programs.
They work with them. And then I will be glad to comment on them
afterward, if you care to.
Mr. Lynch. That would be fine.
Mr. Camp. I think the evidence technician progi-am will be first and
Sergeant Armstrong will tell you about that.
Statement of William Armstrong
Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Congressmen, Mr. Lynch : The evidence tech-
nician program was designed with two specific goals in mind. The first
goal was to cover by crime scene processing a greater number of crime
scenes than had been processed before, and at the same time process
them in depth by trained, competent crime scene examiners.
The second goal that we had set for ourselves was to save patrol time
by having the evidence technician process the scene which had been
relinquished to him by the investigator and thereby putting the investi-
gating officer back into service on the street where he can do the most
good.
As an adjunct to that, we also save the patrol force time in that the
investigating officer no longer is required to collect evidence at the
scene ; is no longer required to leave his assigned area and take what-
ever evidence he has collected to the laboratory, to the ID bureau or
wherever it might be necessary.
The unit was set up, of course, in the face of a national response, or
a national demand I should say, for better evidence presentation in
trials. As you all know. Justice Goldberg in the Escohedo decision,
stated, as a result of that decision, that prosecutors must rely pri-
marily on material evidence, and this, of course, was what we were
committed to do.
Now, within the framework of this organization, we had selected
20 officers who received some 80 hours of classroom time, which covered
such diverse subjects as photography, the searching for and lifting of
latent fingerprints, and how to recognize and collect physical evi-
dence at scenes of crime.
These men were trained with a curriculum that was designed by the
FBI. They were trained by local agents of our FBI office and staff
members of the police laboratory and identification bureau of our
department.
At the conclusion of their 80-hour training they were sent in to as-
signed areas, and there they received 1 week of what you might call
95-158— 78— pt. 1—28
424
on-the-job training, which merely involved the presence of both a
qualified identification man and a photographer, who were able to re-
solve whatever technical difficulties they may have gotten into while
they were on their first day's work.
Subsequently, you might say they had a full 3 weeks of training.
They were assigned in four vans which were purchased, by the way,
with LEAA money. The vans were fully equipped to allow these of-
ficers to have all of the facilities necessary to properly process crime
scenes. The organization has met its goals, one of which was to in-
crease the number of crime scenes visited, and at least we met the goal
of the first impact funding by increasing the number of crime scenes
visited by Fome 20 percent.
At the present time, we are running about 30 percent over what was
examined prior to this.
Statistically, we examined some 35 percent of all index crimes that
occur within the city of St. Louis. This is an increase over the past
6 months of some 8 percent from the 27 percent that we had originally
been searching.
Mr. Lynch. If I might interrupt at that point.
Have you any data to enable you to make a judgment as to whether or
not that is a higher percentage than might be the case in other cities ?
Mr. Armstrong. We have no definitive information on this, but a
fast check that we made after we received your call showed that about
1 percent of crime scenes are examined for physical evidence on a
national basis.
Mr. Lynch. How did you make that check ?
Mr. Armstoong. Primarily, by calling various organizations.
Mr. Lynch. Calling other police agencies ?
Mr. Armstrong. Eight.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
Mr. Steiger. Excuse me. Are you saying only 1 percent of crime
scenes are examined for physical evidence by other than the officer
on the scene ?
Mr. Armstrong. That is correct.
Mr. Steiger. You don't mean the officer on the scene didn't collect
evidence?
Mr. Armstrong. In no way. "We are talking about technical personnel.
Mr. Steiger. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, the other goal we have satisfied, of course, is
in saving the department personnel time on the street. We have
reduced response time of our unit to an average of 22 minutes per
assignment, which for all practical purposes means the investigating
officer can get back into service and be available for added duties much
more rapidly than in the past.
Mr. Lynch. You have how many of these vans. Sergeant?
Mr. Armstrong. The original grant was awarded in 1970. At that
time we purchased four vans. Three of these were assigned to areas
and the fourth was held as a replacement or supernumerary vehicle.
32-''f .Jq—gr— SSl-iJfl
425
In January of this year we received delivery of two additional vans,
purchased again with impact fund money. These have allowed us to
held five units, 16 hours of the day, on a 7-day basis.
Mr. Lynch. How many men man one of these vans?
Mr. Armstrong. Basically, it is a one-man operation, although we
do have one van with two men in it that w^e primarily reserve for in-
famous-type crimes.
Mr. Lynch. And you have trained 20 St, Louis police officers as
evidence technicians. They are the people who man these vehicles; is
tliat correct ?
Mr. Armstrong. That is correct.
Mr. Lynch. And they were regular patrolmen wathin your depart-
ment prior to this assigmnent ?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir ; they were.
Mr. Lynch. I notice that the copy of the photo you gave me has a
map of the city, indicating in various sectors or precincts, or at least
police subdivisions, how many incidents are processed by the evidence
technician unit. I notice in one precinct it is up to 65 percent. What
precinct is that ? Are you familiar with that ?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir. That is the second district.
Mr. Lynch. Is that a high-crime area ?
Mr. Armstrong. No, sir.
Mr. Lynch. Why is it that there is a higher percentage made there?
There is one down here, I don't see a designation, but it shows 19.8
percent.
^Ir. Armstrong. Is this down in tlie lower central part?
Mr. Lynch. Lower middle portion, yes.
Mr. Ar]vistrong. This is our downtown area where we have our
business area, things of this nature.
Now. I don't know whv there is such a disparity between the two
areas. You have to remember that we are contacted by radio. Few of
these calls are self -initiated. We are only responding to calls for serv-
ices by the district officers.
Mt. Lynch. I see. And, according to your testimony, the number
of the index crime scenes which now receive the technical assistance
of an evidence technician has increased significantly; is that correct?
Mr. Armstrong. That is correct.
Mr. Lynch. What impact has that had on the criminal justice sys-
tem in your city ?
Mr. Armstrong. For instance, fingerprint identifications have in-
creased about 75 percent. This, of course, takes these criminals off
the streets. There is another figure behind this one. When a man is
identified as having committed a crime he will frequently then confess
to a number of other crimes he may have been involved in.
Mr. Lynch. You mean when he is identified and when there is
physical evidence to link him to that crime ?
Mr. Armstrong. Whether physical evidence links him to the second,
or third, or succeeding crimes or not.
Mr. Lynch. No ; when you said a man is identified as having com-
mitted a crime, you mean identified through the services of the evi-
dence technician unit ?
Mr. Armstrong. Correct.
426
Mr. Lynch. Has there been an increase in the number of good cases
your department has been able to make and has there been an increase
in the number of convictions as a result of the increase in crime-scene
technician services ?
Mr. Armstrong. Eight. Well, right now, Mr. Lynch, we are not able
to say positively ; however, as part of our next grant we are going to
make a study of just this issue. We are going to attempt to determine
the position that physical evidence plays in the conviction rate in our
courts.
Mr. Lynch. Who performed this service prior to the time you
organized tlie evidence technician unit ?
Mr. Armstrong. Prior to this, the services were provided by three
individual functions of the police department. If you wanted a scene
searclied for fingerprints you called the identification bureau ; if you
wanted that scene photographed, for instance, you had to call the
photo lab ; if you wanted technical assistance at a crime scene to search
for physical evidence, then you called the laboratory division. This
was. of course, both a cumbersome and time-consuming process.
Mr. Lynch. How much does this program cost the department each
year ?
Mr. Armstrong. Well
Mr. Lynch. Wliat is its finding, in other words ? How much money
do you receive ? Do you get this from LE AA ?
Mr. Armstrong. Salaries, of course, are borne by the department
and they amount to some $225,000 a year plus fringes. Supplies,
equipmentwise, it is a relatively small amount. The unit, the vans
and equipment, have been bought through Government money and, to
this date, we have spent some $48,000 in that area for all of the equip-
ment, all of tlie vans, that we have used.
Mr. Lynch. Colonel Camp, what is your goal as to the number of
index crime scenes that will eventually be visited by the evidence tech-
nician unit? Are you satisfied with the 35 percent?
Mr. Ca^ip. It is higher than that now and it is increasing, and I
am satisfied with the acceptance by the rank and file of the program
and the benefits that we derive. Just about all index crime scenes
will be processed.
Mr. Lynch. Wlien do you plan to have that capability ?
Mr. Camp. I thought right now ; every time we get a call we respond.
Every one.
The main category you can't do anything about is stealing over
$50. Thieves leave no evidence; everything is gone. That takes a big
share of the crime right off the bat. We try to process as many stolen
automobiles as we can.
Mr. Lynch. I assume you send evidence technicians to the scene
of all homicides ?
Mr. Camp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. I assume you send them to the scene where rapes have
occurred ?
Mr. Camp. The evidence recovered in rape cases is usually brought
to the lab.
Mr. Lynch. I assume you send them to the scenes of armed rob-
beries, especially when they are in a locale that lends itself to this kind
of analysis ?
427
Mr. Camp. If it is a bank or supermarket, where the man mi^ht have
placed his hand or fired a shot, it will go to that scene. Beyond the
index crimes they go to fires, arson cases, serious auto accidents,
whether it is critical or death cases.
Mr, Lynch. What percentage of stolen autos in your city would be
dusted for prints ?
]\Ir. Camp. The sergeant tells me about 80 percent. And the reason
for that is perhaps maybe the car has be^n fouled up in the weather,
or burned, or something of that nature, and there is nothing you can
do about it. It is useless.
IMr. Lynch. It would be your testimony, then, sir, that certninly for
the most serious index crimes evidence technician units respond to most
of those cases ?
INIr. Camp. Right. Tliey would respond to every one. If, in their
judgment it wouldn't be necessary, it would be useless, a waste of time
to come, they have that discretion to tell the radio dispatcher they
won't respond. But they go to all burglaries, all murders, and many of
the auto thefts.
Mr. Lynch. Colonel, Sergeant Armstrong indicated as a result of an
informal telephone survey of other law enforcement agencies, his
opinion was that on a nationwide basis less than, or I think he said
about, 1 percent of all index crime offenses received a service similar to
yours. In your judgment as a police administrator is this a program
which ought to be adopted in other law enforcement agencies?
Mr. Camp. Yes. Our experience has been, just from a public rela-
tions standpoint— and I am not selling anything, I am just telling what
the experience has been — that there is often the criticism of the police
that if this happened in a more affluent neighborhood they would get
the full treatment. Everyone gets the same treatment here.
I invite you to look at our files, particularly homicide cases ; whether
it is a nondescript person or civic leader they are all treated equally.
And this same evidence procedure is followed.
People today are accustomed to crime-scene searches. They are edu-
cated through TV, the comic strips, and magazine articles. Every vic-
tim of a crime feels that his crime is as serious as the next and he wants
to be treated that way ; and this does answer your serious criticism-
Mr. Lynch. Is this an expensive program ?
Mr. Camp. I think it is a very inexpensive program. In fact, we
recover the patrol tiiue, which is a costly item. Manpower is our big-
gest cost. And if you can get the evidence technician unit there in 20
minutes, which they have been doing, that man is freed immediately.
He goes on his regular patrol tour of duty.
If it were another case and he would be held there for overtime
reasons, we have to compensate him in compensatory time. You don't
pay him for comp time. It is an economy in that sense alone.
Mr. Lynch. What kind of feedback have you had, if any, from the
prosecutor's office about the evidence which you have developed
through the use of this unit ?
Mr. Camp. Mr. Lynch, I have a note here, "Prosecutors are compli-
mentary." I wanted to mention that particularly. In court, as you
laM-yers know, the pliysical evidence is often unassailable and it is
accepted quicker than a witness testifying. We are happy when we can
428
show irrefutable proof b}^ lab analysis what we have found and that
is the best evidence as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Lynch. From everything- you said it appears to me this program
is one which should be easy for most police departments to implement ;
is that correct ?
Mr. Camp. I recommend it to any department ; yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Steiger. I would just advise the colonel and gentleman that
we just had a message from Mrs. Sullivan, who planned to be here and
welcome you. She is at a meeting of the Kules Committee and extends
to you her warmest welcome and her assurance she is aware of your
good work.
Mr. Camp. Thank you very much.
Mr. Steiger. Colonel, I am impressed with this because it sounds
very innovative. I just wondered, perhaps Sergeant Armstrong would
be the best to respond, if the funding were not a factor would you feel
it would require more units than you now have available ?
Mr. Armstrong. At the present time we have funding that allows
us to pay the present personnel overtime pay to work on their holidays,
recreation days, and vacation days, to establish an overlay watch that
allows us to field two additional vans on each of two w^atches daily.
This personnel cost would have to be picked up by the department
to maintain the present level of effectiveness.
Mv. Steiger. I understand that. But what I really want to know is
if the number of units that you now have, the number of people,
are adequate to do the job.
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, I think so. By the way, if I might inter-
ject a thought here, the original grant was awarded in 1970 and
terminated in 1971. The department picked up this expense until the
receipt of the impact funds in August of last year. So they have ac-
cepted the expense of this unit.
Mr. Steiger. Do you know of any other communities that have
adopted this particular program?
Mr. Armstrong. Washington, D.C., has a program much like this.
Mr. Steiger. I didn't realize that. A'ery good.
Colonel, what is the size of your police force ?
Mr. Camp. About 2,200 or 2,300 sworn personnel.
Mr. Steiger. "Wliat is the population of St. Louis?
Mr. Camp. It has dropped to about 623,000. And then we have just
near 700 civilian employees in addition to the sworn personnel.
Mr. Steiger. So we are talking about alm^ost 3,000 people?
Mr. Camp. About 3,000 people.
Mr. Steiger. As a rule of thumb, at least for your purposes, the 20
trained personnel and the four units are sufRcient for that size force,
for the kind of activity you are faced with?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, under the present situation. I would like to
bring up another thought. It was mentioned about the processing of
100 percent of the crime scones. We have two observations to make
here.
No. 1, it is not necessarv to process 100 percent of the crime scenes.
Second, along with this idea of the effectiveness of physical evidence,
or the research in this area, we are also going to research the question
of, "What is the optimum number of crime scenes to be examined with-
429
in our city?-' so tliat we properh^ may be able to establish a manning
level for this unit.
Mr. Steiger. That is a good point. I also have to believe it is not
a quantitative result and I have to believe there is some effect on the
accused in knowing there is that kind of unit available and that kind
of evidence, at least. If the guy knows he did it and he knows your
unit was on the field, even if you missed it, he is liable to be more apt
to cop out.
Mr. Armstrong. May I tell a story?
Mr. Steiger. I wish you would.
Mr. Armstrong. Last week there was a fatal shooting in a local
go-go establishment. Our evidence technicians went to the scene
and took swabs of three individuals' hands for powder residue tests.
After we left the scene, we got a telephone call from a waitress em-
ployed in the establishment wliose hand had been swabbed. Her state-
ment was, "Well, you are going to find out I shot that guy, so I will
admit it now."
So this is the degree of effectiveness, the type of effect you have
mentioned.
Mr. Steiger. I have to believe that is a very valid observation. I
have no further questions.
Mr. Winn?
Mr. Winn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am sorry I missed the earlier part of your testimony. Colonel.
But I have been reading the information here about the vans and it
is similar to what I was talking to the gentleman from Detroit about,
as far as the deterring asset it has, as far as public relations with the
community.
Of course not only the efficiency, and I think you have that well
named, but the speed with which you can process and make your tests.
Do you have any idea how many man-hours it might save over the
normal process of calling a man out from headquarters, or separate
crews ?
Mr. Camp. Just to give a random figure would be pure guesswork.
but I can show you by example : An officer goes out on the 7 a.m. tour
of duty. At 7 : 30 he gets a call of a burglary ; he gets there ; looks the
scene over; knows it is an assignment for the ETU men. Prior to
this he would have to wait for various ones, maybe a fingerprintman,
someone from the lab.
We didn't have so much from the lab unless it was of some magni-
tude. They waited for the fingerprintman and photo force.
Mr. Winn. These men are trained to take photographs?
Mr. Camp. Yes.
Mr. Winn. As a part of their training ?
Mr. Camp. Speed-graphic-type cameras, and well trained in the use
of cameras.
Mr. Winn. Do they come from the ranks, usually ?
Mr. Caivip. Yes, sir.
Mr. Winn. Always ?
Mr. Camp. Always. These were volunteers. They were not just on a
volunteer basis. There were roughly 80 that responded to the ques-
tionnaire, and they were given aptitude tests and they settled on
these 20 people for training.
430
Mr. Winn. Do they get additional pay for serving on this efficiency
van?
Mr. Camp. No, sir. It is just diversity of assignment as part of the
job. They all like to try something different. It broadens their ex-
perience. They don't intend to be typed in there for life, but they
could go from there to homicide, a better unit. They become better
known.
Mr. Winn. You have no women serving in the unit ? i
Mr. Camp. jSTo ; but I can see the time for women because Ave picked
two women for the next class.
Mr. Winn. Would there be any benefit in having women serve
because of the tests and the interAdews with women that have been
raped, that you might do a better and more efficient job Avith Avomen
than you Avould Avith men ?
Mr. Camp. Mr. Winn, that was one consideration in picking these
two female applicants for the force.
Mr. Winn. They are not on the force at the present time ?
Mr. Camp. They will be on there Monday. They will be sworn in.
But AA^e have approximately 15 policewomen that have been with us for
many years. And through attrition, they reached that number. I think
we had as high as 25.
Mr. Winn. I am not really trying to figure out how many women
you have on the force, I am trying to relate to a program we heard
about earlier in the week, where in many cases there is an insensi-
tiA^ity by a patrolman Avhen talking to a rape Aactim and that the
women will talk to another woman more candidly and probably more
efficiently than they would with a man.
Mr. Camp. Mr. Winn, there are a couple of women that formed
an organization, and three of them came to my office last week with
that A''ery idea. They feel the victim to be more likely, or more at
ease, to talk to a female officer and that is one of the considerations
for this new unit.
Mr. Winn. New York seems to have a program which is relatively
neAv that is receiving a lot of publicity. And the young lady in charge
of that. Lieutenant Tucker, was before this committee earlier in the
week.
She seems to think, in her personal testimony, that this might be
a better job of really getting to the facts on rapes. She made the
statement, which kind of surprised me but maybe it is again because
I am a man and not a woman, that she felt — and I am not quoting
her— women could better identify a rapist, his mannerisms and things
like that, when being interviewed by a female officer than a male
officer.
That was kind of interesting and that is why I asked you if you
had Avomen. Do you think if you had women on these vans it would
cause any problems in any way? The men wear uniforms?
]\f r. Camp, Yes.
^Ir. Winn. And the women would be in uniform, too?
Mr. Camp. Yes.
Mr. Winn. And people are getting used to seeing policewomen in
the A^arious cities these days?
Mr. Camp. I think thev are ; yes. I am not fully convinced that we
would use them on the van at this time. There are assignments where
431
tlie}' could be used, but these assignments are in high-crime areas
and often they would be alone.
Mr. Winn. They would be alone ?
Mr. Camp. Most of our evidence technicians do work alone.
Mr. Winn, The van drivei-s are alone ? I thought they traveled in
teams of two.
Mr. Camp. Only on some of the murder cases where there may be a
big area that is searched for a limited time. A lot of employees will be
coming in and we want to give it a thorough, quick search.
Mr. Winn. Vans really are not pertinent in the basic or broad con-
text of these hearings, which is preventive methods, as much as they
are an efficient operation, and timesaving for your patrolmen.
Mr. Camp. There is a side effect. The recovery of man-hours. These
men are returned to patrol, and with the added visibility, or heightened
visibility, of these police cars, that is where the benefit comes in.
Mr. Winn. From the community psychology, seeing the vans, know-
ing that they are there and on the job ?
Mr. Camp. It is another police vehicle in the neighborhood.
Mr. Winn. Yes. And it leaves more men available rather than pull-
ing them in in headquarters, or off other divisions, or leaves them on
the street in their basic assignments.
Mr. Camp. That is right.
Mr. Winn. Have jon touched on your delinquency program?
ISIr. Camp. No.
Mr. Winn. That is next ?
Mr. Camp. Just to mention the man who has conducted this program
is here and he will testify.
]\Ir. Winn. We have "a copy of a letter from the National Clearing
house for Criminal Justice, Managing and Architecture, compliment-
ing Sergeant Mueller, so we will wait until we get to that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The letter referred to was retained in the committee files.]
'Mr. Steiger. Counsel, would you proceed.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Colonel Camp, we have heard testimony from several chiefs of police
that high levels of \'iolent crime continue to be perpetrated by very
youthful offenders. Here in the District of Columbia it has been true
for a number of years that a very, very substantial proportion of index
offenses are committed by young people.
Your department has recently instituted a special program for coun-
seling hardcore delinquents. I wonder if you could have Sergeant
Mueller describe, first, what you define as a hardcore delinquent; and,
second, what you have tried to do to counsel those people.
Sergeant Mueller ?
Statement of Charles Mueller
Mr. IMuELLER. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, a hardcore delinquent for the purpose of the original
grant was any youth under the age of 17 who had eight arrests or more.
A recidivist naturally is one who has more than one arrest: but for
hardcore, we took it un with the court and they decided that for iden-
tification of "hardcore"' they would decide on eight felony arrests or
more as the criteria.
432
In our original grant we reached out and we gathered together 125
vouths who shared 850 arrests among them.
Now the unique feature of this particular program of team counsel-
ing is that from experience we have found the motivation, the capa-
bility, and the probability of crime occurring among young people on
the street, is not individually motivated, but peer motivated. These 125
individuals constituted about 40 groups.
In other words, any one member of a peer group had to have eight
arrests or more.
Sometimes an individual had 25 arrests. The two individuals that
were with them, perhaps had five, one had three. But they were a part
of the peer group. So our purpose was to gather these groups off the
street at times of high-area crime, between 6 and 10 p.m.
Mr. Winn. Excuse me just a minute. These are organized groups?
Do they go by names ?
Mr. Mueller. No. This is the feature. This is why we don't call them
gangs. They are groups. If I may read the type indicated right here :
One group, 369419. Individual 16 years of age, lias arrests for rape, assault,
burglary, larceny, and auto theft.
Xo. 2 man in that group is 16 years old and he has had an arrest for rape.
No. 3 in the same group has arrests for burglary, auto theft, and vandalism.
No. 4. this boy is only 15 years of age and he has a record of rape, robbery,
assault, burglary, and larceny.
No. 5, this boy is 18, he has no record. This particular boy, the last one, is
age 15, and he has no record. But this is the type of behavior that is out on the
street.
Mr. Lynch. Excuse me, sir. I am not sure I understand what the two
youngsters with no records are doing in that group.
Mr. 3.IuELLER. They are part of this group. They are a peer group.
For the purpose of this contact, this encounter, they had no record as
far as we know.
Mr. Winn. But they are kind of heading for trouble with the com-
pany they are keeping ?
Mr. Mueller. This is why we keep them.
ISIr. Winn. Aren't they both 15, the last two?
Mr. Mueller. No. The last one was 15 and the other 18. There was
only one over age. that was 18. But all the rest were below juvenile age,
or at juvenile age, and you heard the record they have.
This is the type of group we went after, to identify ourselves with
them and them with us. Does that give you the idea of the 125 boys
we reached out for?
Our purpose in "reaching out for," is to change the direction and
the behavior pattern of these groups that heretofore had been con-
stantly involved with the type of offenses I just read off. If allowed,
and no effort was made to try to change their behavior or change their
direction, we had every reason to believe it would continue. So this was
the purpose of the program, to reach out, identify these particular
groups— of which some years back, we identified that there were 500
boys with 8 arrests or more in the community of St. Louis.
These 500 were within a perimeter of about 125 groups, so we knew
that the problem was there.
Now, what to do about it ? Wp reached out to try to identify the boy
with the department and the department with the boy.
We did that by trying to open up three centers in high-crime areas —
recreation centers. We did not try to make it a police department pro-
433
gram per se, nobody but police. We reached into the community and
saw to it that we had police officers, recreational leaders, and juvenile
court personnel who operate as counsel under secondary cmplo^/ment.
"We take no manpower away from the police department. We selected
juvenile officers who constantly work with children, anyway.
We took juvenile court probation officers who, as probation officers,
were practically with them anyway. They are already under their
counseling services at the office. We then provided a recreation leader
who could fill in the gaps we needed to keep them constructively enter-
tained while we talked with them.
I could just keep on going and going.
Mr. Lyxch. I would like you to describe, if you would, what a
typical counseling session consists of ; what kinds of counseling do you
aive the youngster who has been in this kind of trouble ? Those were
rather extensive records you read off a moment ago. What effect has
counseling had on their subsequent recidivism rate?
Mr. ]MuELLER. We never have less than two counseling sessions a
week. Tuesday and Thursday. Some places it is Monday and Wednes-
day. But these three counselors I spoke of, they personally care for
the behavior patterns and the conduct of 10 individuals. Each officer
or each counselor has 10. So there is 30 to a unit, 30 to a center. This
officer must account for the boys' attendance or nonattendance and
report back to our offxe. So we constantly know whether this boy's
attendance is varying or not. And he makes home visits if he doesn't
attend regularly.
His counseling, more or less, occurs as they meet as a group. They sit
down and ask what would you like to do? We have them occupied;
at least, we have them. They are off the street, we have them in a center
that, if I can digress for a minute, many times they have been thrown
out of. In fact, some of our counselors were thrown out along with
them, when they first attempted to meet in these centers.
They threw the boys out and the counselors along with them, and
we had to persuade them that this was a better situation and now they
were under good control. I hasten to add we have had no bad result.
We have had no one complain or say that our boys were not under good
control.
Mr. Wixx. Who pays the counselors ?
Mr. ^Mueller. The LEA A grant. And they pay them $5 an hour.
At this particular time, they work 14 hours a week.
Xow. the counseling session, to get back to the question, consists of
first meeting with the boys, discussing what their likes are, what they
don't like. We have pool tables, ping-pong tables. We have a bumper
pool table and we engage them in different types of activities.
We have basketball courts available. We know this type of boy has
a very short span of attention. He cannot play in recreation programs
per se, I would like to make that clear. These boys don't engage in a
full athletic program because they don't understand what a full athletic
proofram is. They have never been a part of one.
So counseling is a very important part to get him to know what
society reallv is like. We call our counselina- and our program similar
to the opening of windows and opening of doors to life. If they want
to £ro bowlinfT, we provide it. T^EAA provides us the m^^ans bv which
we can take 30 boys bowling along with 10 counselors. Prior to going
434
bowling they will counsel with the boys and tell them what this was
all about.
We had children who had never been in a bowling alley. They
counsel with them on what they expect to see, what is the purpose of
responsibility, what are the purposes of behavior. In other words, you
don't roam around a building when someone else is bowling. What is
the reason for that? What is a foul line? And we try to get over to
them measures by which they can understand that there is discipline
in all areas of life.
This is it, basically. And then we have occasions when we sit down
and the boys will actually unburden themselves, but not immediately.
It will take 3 months or more.
We had an unusual experience just recently where one of our new
centers opened and a boy who stood in the background and our coun-
selors were trying to get our boys to open up a little bit, and because
it was a new center they were very reluctant. This individual is 16, he
stepped forward and said to the boys, "That is how I got out of Boon-
ville, by participating in counseling."
They have a peer counseling session up in Boonville, which is the
reformatory, and he led the class and he brought our kids into the pro-
gram of counseling, which was very interesting to us. It showed us
what it does mean and how these kids can actually help themselves.
We find that in the meantime the community is benefiting from the
fact that instead of being on the street without supervision they are
now under good supervision, recreation, and control.
Mr. Lynch. That is for only a few hour? a week they are under some-
one's supervision. What happens to them the remainder of the week?
I must say tliat a good deal of what you have been saying sounds like
this is a recreational program. I understand there is more to it than that,
and I Avonder if you could go into that. How have you been able, if at
all, to redirect their attitudes ?
Mr. Mueller. I told you we had 125 boys who shared 850 arrests.
And during that first-year period, 11 months, 60 percent of these boys
who had these long extensive records were not arrested in that entire
year.
Not only were they not arrested, but they did not receive any truancy
notices and they didn't receive any curfew notices.
Mr. Winn. Tliev were back in scliool ?
Mr. Mueller. This program is not as extensive as all of that, sir. In
other words, this is a supplemental program to the effect they are
actually being counseled by juvenile court in the meantime.
Mr. Winn. Some of them go to school ?
Mr. Mueller. Oh, yes. Many of them. I would say we have had
occasions when we learned they were not going to school. We were called
by the parents and asked if they could get them back in the school.
Mr. Winn. I think counsel was trying to find out if other than the
time you spend with them at the centers there is a lot of other time
unaccounted for. This is what most of us have been led to believe was
the time when most youths get into trouble.
Mr. Mueller. This is why I brought out the subject, 60 percent- — we
can't watch them 24 hours, I know you know that, and while we had 14
hours a week with them, some way or another, on the basis of our
experience, and also on the basis of two tests that were given by Dr.
435
William Harvey — lie pro\-ided tests at the beginning of tlie program —
psychological tests. This was given and paid for by LEAA. He con-
ducted another test at the end. and his reports are on your desk.
Mr. Lyxch. Sergeant, 60 percent of 125 youngsters is 75 youngsters.
Of that 75 who were not rearrested, how man}^ of those had no criminal
record to begin with ? Do you kiioAv that ?
Mr. Mueller. No. But ^ vrouhi say this would require further
investigation.
Mr. Lyxch. Let me ask you this : Of the remaining 40 percent, or
50 youngsters, in the program, how many times were those 50 re-
arrested durin.g the year ?
Mr. INIiJELLER. This is significant. We could have researched it, but
I would say — and I have the figures right here, they are laying on
your deslv — I believe five were ai-rested twice during the year and the
balance were arrested one time. Which could be a measurable differ-
ence in their previous records if we wanted to take the time to research
it. We went by the report of Dr. Clement Mihanovich, who said there
was a significant reduction in his delinquency proneness, and Dr.
Harvey stated the same thing. That was his report, together with the
records of the police department, which showed that.
This is encouraging.
Mr. WiXN. You said you could research it. T-et me urge you to re-
search it, and I think you could do it with no expenditure of LEAA
funds or anybody else's funds. I think you can get some of the psy-
chology classes at St. Louis University or some of the rest of the uni-
versities in your area to do that for you as an assignment with credits;
and it would probably be very constructive for them, too.
Maybe you have done that. I don't have that record in front of me.
Mr. Mueller. Under the present operation, an extended operation,
it will all be computerized. Everything will be computerized. Then,
at any time, not just at certain times, you can call for a computer
printout. All the information will be in there.
Mr. Winn. That is fine. Let me ask you another question I over-
looked a minute ago. We heard quite a bit of talk about blacks and
whites and racial implications this morning. With the counselors —
and you have a group of 10 — if they are all white boys do you use a
white counselor, or do you pay any attention to that at all ?
]Mr. Mueller. No attention is paid to that at all.
Mr. Winn. So five of the fellows may be black and five may be
white ; or they may be white, black, Mexican, et cetera.
Mr. Mueller. I will say this. In all honesty and fairness, we have
10 centers in operation and 9 of them are completely black and 1 of
them, the Cherokee Center, is all white. No effort is made to put only
white boys in there, but it is all white.
Mr. Winn. But you are not going out of your way in the predom-
inantly black areas to put only black counselors ?
Mr. INIueller. We have never done that. W^e are taking our enroll-
ment from juvenile court. In other words, it is as juvenile court gives
it to us. You are all acquainted with the term "overlay," I am sure.
Our program merely takes the juvenile justice system of the city of
St. Louis, our juvenile court. It l;ns branch offices and we just furnish
an overlay program of two centers to each juvenile center.
436
So that the juvenile center — the juvenile court center — gives us our
input of recommendations of whom they would want in the program,
and Judge Gartner has banged the gavel on many a clnld. We went
through the tep.m counseling program rather than go to IMissouri Hill.
But we have one rule, if ho bangs the gavel on Joe Smitli, we take
Joe Smith in the program. Now we are down to four arrests as hard-
core, mider the teraiinology requested by the court, not by us. The
court said that A-^e had a pretty high rate there of eight and would
we bring it down to four. So at their suggestion, we brought it down
to four, but Joe Smitli or whatever his name is, let's bring his peers
with him.
Mr. Lynch. Wouldn't it be desirable, Sergeant, to get it down to
one arrest?
Mr. Mueller. Well. I don't know that T would say that — this would
not then be a hard-core program. I feel a boy that has only one arrest —
and I v^^ill take your side on this, there is a lot of confiision about the
boy who has one arrest. If you look very closely and research it, as
Mr. Winn said, you will find that he got his one arrest because he was
with peers who had five.
Mr. Lynch. Or because he may have been let go three or four times
before he had the one arrest?
Mr. Mueller. We have boys within our program w^ith one arrest,
but they are members of a peer group. We have boys in our program
with no arrest, but who have shown by their inclinations that they want
to be with these peers who liave given the department trouble.
Mr. Winn. Wliat brings them together? What brings a group any-
where from 18 to 15 years old together?
Mr. Mueller. What brings them together ?
Mr. Winn. Yes.
Mr. Mueller. Mutual problems.
Mr. Winn. Neighborhood problems, family problems?
Mr. Camp. School, neighborhood, hangout.
Mr. Winn. Dropouts ?
Mr. Camp. Hangouts around poolrooms, and places youngsters
gather, contemporaries. They are brought together that way.
]\Ir. Winn. "Wliat if a bad e^^ enjoys his counseling and he has got
a horrible record and he knows another guy that has a horrible record
but is not on the books right now and he wants to bring Mm in and
make him No. 11 in this class ?
Mr. Mueller. "\^niatever we do we are fluid. I say we don't have any
real hard, fast rules, but we do take our job seriously. We have a con-
tract with LEAA to keep an accurate account of what we did with
these boys. We stay with these particular ones, we really emphasize
and concentrate on them.
Mr. Winn. Can he bring a buddy ?
Mr. Mueller. He can bring a buddy in.
JNIr. Winn. Do they do it ?
Mr. Mueller. We don't reject it.
Mr. Winn. Do they do it ?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, we are constantly besieged by not only the boys
but the court to bring more boys in. We would be happy to do it if we
were equipped to do it, but what we do is we sort of underplay it;
play at low key.
437
Mr. Lynch. Do parents refer boys to you ?
Mr. Mueller. No. We get our input from the juvenile court and
from the juvenile division of the police department. Anyone in law
enforcement who can indicate to us that the thing here is a real
problem area.
Mr. Lynch. You have a lad for 2 or 3 hours a week ?
Mr. Mueller. No. We have him twice a week, for between 3 and 4
hours, 2 nights a week ; about 8 hours.
Mr. Lynch. You have them under your supervision for that time.
Are any of the people in your program under the continuing super-
vision of the juvenile court?
Mr. Mueller, Oh, yes,
Mr. Lynch. They are ?
Mr, Mueller. Yes.
iMr, Lynch. Are they reporting to juvenile probation officers?
]Mr, Mueller. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. So there is other supervision in addition to your own ?
Mr. Mueller. That is right.
This is the supplemental thing. In other words — this is very impor-
tant to me so I hope you don't mind if I throw this in here — the
general philosophy of all probation and parole is the 1-to-l concept. I
deal with you and you deal with me, this is a mutual thing we do to-
gether. And the minute the boy leaves the court after being counseled
with on a 1-to-l basis, he comes under the influence of his peer group
and the 1-to-l counseling just received is eroded and the group washes
away the value of the counseling session he received in court. By help-
ing to contain the action of this boy's peer group we make his 1-to-l
concept just a little bit better and stronger.
Mr. Lynch. How expensive is this program ?
Mr. jMueller. I would like to throw that out. We tried to put a cen-
ter within five blocks of the boy's home. There is research on this,
the boy won't move out of a five-block area. So we have now 10 centers.
So that the basis of the 10 centers, we will take any hard-core boy
within that locality. If he lives two blocks further away, we will still
take him, but it becomes a bigger problem for us. Our counselors go
to their homes many times and pick them up, particularly if their
absenteeism is beginning to build up. Almost automatically, the coun-
selors always take them home,
Mr. Lynch. How much does the program cost?
Mr. ]\Iueller. We started out with a program of three centers with
$61,000 for an 11-month period and we got a lot of mileage out of it.
We got about 16 months out of that. Then there was a shortage of
money. No money was available until somebody discovered a program
that wasn't functioning and it had $30,000. So we operated again on
a smaller basis of 10 hours counseling, just to maintain our program
until we could get a bigger view at the end of the tunnel.
So now we have the impact funds that came along with $50,000 for
which we are getting about 6 months mileage. But we opened up 10
centers.
Mr. Lynch. That would be $100,000 per annum at that rate then?
Mr. Mueller. At that rate.
Mr, Lynch. What is the maximum number of young people you can
serve with that amount of money ?
438
Mr. Mueller. We now have 310 children involved in the program.
We have 27 girls and 283 boys.
]Mr. Lynch. That strikes me as very inexpensive on a per capita
basis compared with any land of recreational facility.
Mr. Mueller. It ends up about $325, I believe, which pays for all
of his counseling, his counselor, our centers cost us nothing, and we
have the programs that we bring the boy to. Many times we go to ball
games and things like that. We have a roller skating rink that just
opened up for 25 cents.
Mr. Lynch. Colonel, in your judgment, and again as a police ad-
ministrator, would you consider this to be a valuable expenditure of
Federal ar dcrime funds ?
Mr. Caimp. Yes, sir. In fact, I had to put the final approval on it at
the time and each time it was funded I did the same tiling. So I have got
a lot of confidence in the program..
Mr. T^YNCH. I have no further questioFiS, Mr. Chainnan.
Mr. Winn. I would like to ask if you have girls or women counselors
for the girls in the program ?
Mr. JSIueller. Yes, sir. The program is actually conducted right
in the juvenile court building and we have two juvenile court probation
officers and a recreation leader from another city recreation center
who come to the juvenile court. The court has a large gymnasium of
its own, it has its own counseling rooms, ping-pong tables, and things
like that.
Mr. Winn. Could you enlarge this program and include more of
the eommimity — like an acrobatic or gymnastic program, which seems
to be catcliing on with the young people more these days ?
Mr. jMueller. There are many ways in which we would like to
enlarge the program. My own experience has shown that in so many
instances we arc working with the child, and the child is maybe
cooperating with us, but the parents are sitting home with their feet up
on the chair.
Mr. Winn. That is true, but I don't know how you are going to
change that.
Mr. Mueller. We have some plans on trying to close that cycle, not
completely, but piecemeal. We are trying to close this cycle because
we have had some experimental contacts with several of the parents.
Mr. Winn. I think that is fine and I hope it works. I suppose that,
again, you would run into a problem where some of the parents have
probably given up on their children.
Mr. Mueller. If I can give you their general consensus, of the few
parents I talked to, they said, "Well, we sure appreciate what you
are doing for our children. We appreciate the fact you even contacted
us and found out we have problems. We don't want our children like
that, but everybody wants to do for the child, nobody wants to help
us."
So this has been our problem.
Mr. Winn (presiding) . As a parent of five children I talk and listen
to this for days, really, because we have heard similar types of pro-
grams on recidivism out in California, where they did a very similar
type of thing. The police officers themselves did it more or less on their
own, in their spare time, and they started with those who had been
arrested 14 times. And you are down to four. So I think the philosophy
is great.
439
I believe Colonel Camp has another phase of the program he would
like to present. We also know you have a plane to catch. So would
you proceed, sir.
Mr. Camp. I just wanted to let the committee know what I feel is
the latest in police patrol systems, and we are seeking funding on the
program. The acronym is FLAIR, meaning "flee locating and infor-
mation reporting." It is a system whereby you can set up a command
control room, look at a map, see a series of lights. These lights can be
identified as particular cars. In this way, you have control over every
car in your city. You can tell where that man is at every hour of the
Iday. When he is out of the car, the light doesn't go off, it stay on.
There is a series of buttons; if he needs help he merely presses a
button.
We have looked at this for about 4 months. We had several trial
runs in our city. It is probably the most promising thing in technologi-
cal advancement in police patrol that I can ever recall. To me it rivals
the radio in importance.
Mr. Winn. In Kansas City, Kans., this is now within the last year
and a half, I helped them secure this type of operation. This is a com-
munication system with every car and every patrolman. You have your
foot patrolmen with walkie-talkies.
Mr. Camp. We have a lot of those ; yes.
Mr. Winn. Not on this particular system ?
Mr. Camp. This is altogether different from the radio. It ties in
with the computer. You can see, not the car, but the location of that
car, right dowm to the street he is traveling. And you know where he
is at all hours of the day and night. You can assure every area of the
city being covered. You can get a replay of that after the tour of duty
if you want to know where he has traveled.
Mr. Winn. So if the guy goes to a store for a package of cigarettes
you will know where he is and where he stops.
Mr. Camp. Everything. But the feature of this is that you can spread
your patrol around, the safety of the officer. It might be a help in the
long run, where you have too many cars, you can convert the men in
two-men cars to the investigative branch, or maybe not need as many.
I am not looking for that but it is a wiser use of manpower.
We have had it in St. Louis several times. It is being developed in
Topeka, Kans., where they have the experimental part but they brought
it to our city, tried it out in our cars, and our radio technicians worked
with them on it. We are seeking a Federal grant fund for this.
Mr. Winn. How much did you ask for ?
Mr. Camp. It is a little less than $4 million.
Mr. Winn. Are these LE AA funds ?
Mr. Camp. That is right. I feel it is worth every bit of it because it
will be the prototype. As far back as 1967, one of the Commissions, I
believe the President's Commission on Crime, strongly urged the police
departments to find a locator system.
Mr. XoLDE. Colonel Camp, I would like to ask you about the special
pilot program you put into effect last year, as I understand it, the
overtime foot patrol. Would you tell the committee about that
program ?
Mr. Camp. Yes. In the area where we put that the crime has been
reduced — foot patrol. It has maybe moved into other areas and we
95-158 O— 73— pt. 1 29
440
have a small increase in crime. This was done in response to public
demand for more foot officers.
Mr. NoLDE. And these are officers working on their own time ?
Mr. Camp. Yes. In other words, we prefer a man, if he wants to
take one of his overtime days, he has a day coming to him, he can work
on that particular time. You are buying police protection, experienced
police protection by the hour. There are many things to commend it.
But I don't think a city could operate with the size force you would
need for that many footmen. If we ever do away with the likelihood
of Federal funding we couldn't operate it. We can't double our police
force as you have done in Washington, D.C.
It had its effect in giving reassurance to the people it is safe on the
streets at night. We heard from certain neighborhoods where the
people are less reluctant to stay inside, they want to get out, they want
to shop. And it is complimentary to us to hear the people say that it is
so nice to see a police officer around. It is almost a novelty.
But I don't think that is the answer, Mr. Nolde.
Mr. NoLDE. I take it you, in St. Louis, had gotten away from foot
patrol quite a number of years ago except in the downtown area.
Mr. Camp. Just about every city had to get away from foot patrol.
It is a luxury you can't afford. A car, a program, if it is followed to
the letter, and if you have everything favorable, it is a foot patrolman
in a car. That is what it really amounts to. But the workload has
increased so much in the last few years, the man goes from assignment
to assignment, except perhaps from 3 o'clock on in the morning or 4,
no one sees him out when he is out trying the doors. But the workload
has increased. Increased so much you can't operate with footmen alone.
Mr. NoLDE. In effect, you say you believe in the benefits of foot
patrolmen, substantially ; however, you just can't afford it.
Mr. Camp. We couldn't. I don't know of any other city, outside of
Washington Where the funding is a little bit different than any other
city.
In other words, St. Louis is a city, it is a separate entity, it is not even
part of a county. I don't think any city can afford the amount of police
protection people feel they should have, and I think the action is going
to come in technological advancement, such as what we are experi-
menting here.
Mr. NoLDE. The pilot program is federally funded ?
Mr. Camp. We hope it will be federally funded.
Mr. NoLDE. It hasn't been so far.
Mr. Camp. We have a grant in — an application for a grant. We are
an impact city, incidentally. That is where we got the manpower for
this foot patrol. I recommended the foot patrol and we are getting the
mileage out of it. But I have to look down the road to the day when it
won't be there.
Mr. Lynch. In that regard, if I may, Mr. Nolde, how much money
has gone to St. Louis under the impact program ?
Mr. Camp. It is apportioned out, $5 million.
Mr. Lynch. Of the $5 million, how much will be made available to
your police department ?
Mr. Camp. Well, as it looks, we will get the lion's share. I am not
going to give the total dollar value because it would be a guess. Wlien it
first came out, it was for the cities but, naturally, the others in the
administration of the justice program — there are the police, prose-
441
cutors, the courts, and corrections, in tliat order — will have to have
something. If we intensifv our efforts, bring in more people, they will
have to handle more people, so it is understandable they will all share ;
but we have been getting the lion's share.
Mr. Lynch. What is the size of your police department's aimual
budget ?
Mr. Camp. $34 million.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
Mr. NoLDE. Colonel, what effect has your foot patrol program had
in the area in which it is operative ? I take it the crime rate has gone
down ?
Mr. Camp. It has gone down. But the overall effect is what we are
going to be measured on.
Mr. NoLDE. But has it gone down disproportionately more so than
the entire city ?
Mr. Camp. It is understandable, sir, it would, when you saturate a
neighborhood. They did this in New York years ago with the satura-
tion program under a different name. If you can afford that much of
a concentration of manpower, it is bound to go down.
Mr. NoLDE. I see. Thank you very much.
Mr. Winn. I just have two questions and then we are going to let
you go.
Do you still have the horse patrol ?
Mr. Campbell. We just started the horse patrol. We had it years
ago and brought it back.
Mr. Winn. In the parks?
Mr. Camp. They started out in the parks and the demand for them
over the city has been so great that in addition, outside of the high
crowd season, or high crowd season in Forest Park, we will move them
around. We use them downtown in the shopping area. We have taken
them through the Carondelet Park, all of the big parks, and they are
very popular. Not only from the standpoint of crime control, but it is
from the public relations standpoint. The people feel they are getting
more for their money from the police department.
Mr. Winn. I assume in Forest Park they are very impressive.
Do you use a scooter patrol ? Do you have a scooter patrol like we
have here?
Mr. Camp. We had the Vesper-type scooter and we used it for a while.
The maintenance costs on it were high. We are experimenting with
several types of vehicles ; the golf cart, it is slow, but has maneuver-
ability.
Mr. Winn. A golf cart?
Mr. Camp. Yes. We are going to get it. It is not a pursuit vehicle,
it is just to give the footmen a greater range. We have used a Jeep
because of its maneuverability. It goes over irregular terrain in Forest
Park. That is a good vehicle. We hope to try the right-hand drive Jeep
as the post office uses, where you can pull it into a filling station for the
inspection of the premises. That is still a fundamental of foot patrol.
Mr. Winn. I hope they get there faster than the post office. Was
there a problem with safety on the smaller, faster scooters?
Mr. Camp. We tried them out down there. There was no safety prob-
lem ; purely a maintenance problem.
442 ,
Mr. Winn. In some cities they have a problem with the safety of
the officer because they were open scooters and offer no protection for
the officers at all.
Mr. Camp. As far as weather and so forth ?
Mr. Winn. Weather and cars. They are small enough they can't be
seen very well, like a bicycle.
Mr. Camp. The Cushman scooter the post office uses, and we use them
for parking meters. That is a police vehicle that is closed in and it
is high enough that it is not a traffic hazard. We are going to try that
because we feel it is economic to operate and it is safe. But we are in
touch with the Cushman people for that type of scooter.
Mr. Winn. Thank you very much. Colonel. We appreciate your ap-
pearing and I hope you have time to make your airplane. It looks
like you do.
We will take a brief recess.
[A brief recess was taken.]
[The following material was received for the record :]
The Evidence Technician Unit, Laboratobt Division, Btjbeau of Services,
Police Department, St. Louis, Mo., Sgt. William R. Armstrong, Acting
Commander
Prior to October 1970, patrol oflBcers of the St. Louis Police Deimrtment
were charged with the collection of physical evidence at the scenes of crimes
they were investigating. Specialized work such as recovering latent prints or
photographing the crime scenes required a special call to the organizations that
provided the particular service and frequently a long wait while protecting the
crime scene until the specialized units responded.
While this system works fairly well, it is obvious that the crime scenes could
yield more evidence and that patrol time, so precious to a busy Department, was
being wasted while the patrol officer collected the physical evidence and de-
livered it to the proper recipient.
Realizing the need for more competent and complete processing of crime
scenes, in 1970 the St. Louis Police Department applied for and received a
discretionary grant in the amount of $59,500 from the Department of Justice
through the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
With the approval of this grant, specific steps were taken to form what is
known as the "Evidence Technician Unit" or ETU.
The primary goals of the "ETU" were twofold ; first, it was expected that prop-
erly trained Evidence Technicians could provide a complete and in depth search
of crime scenes for physical evidence and producing as an end result more crime
clearances ; and second, a reduction in the amount of patrol time lost while patrol
officers waited at the scenes of crime for members of the specialized units re-
sponded to those scenes or while the officers collected and delivered what physical
evidence they could to the Laboratory.
Department planners decided the ETU would fulfill the three main functions
in the evidence scheme. These three functions were: (1) Search for and recover
latent fingerprints; (2) Photograph all crime scenes; and (3) Search for and
collect physical evidence. It was also decided that the Evidence Technicians
would not perform any examinations on evidence collected but would serve only
to collect the evidence which is then turned over to the Laboratory or Identifica-
tion Divisions staffs for evaluation and examination.
A manning level of twenty officers was established and it was decided these
officers would work in uniform in easily recognized vehicles under radio control so
the ETU would enjoy a high degree of mobility and visibility both while at a
crime scene and while patrolling their assigned areas, thereby serving as a pre-
ventive patrol.
Operationally, the ETU was to be an around the clock operation assigned to
the Laboratory Division of the Bureau of Services. It was emphasized that the
Evidence Technicians would be on the street where they would be readily avail-
able when needed.
It was determined that the Unit would have three areas covering three con-
tinuous police districts each as their basic assigned areas. However, the dis-
443
patching supervisor was given the option of calling a unit from one area into
another when the situation dictated such a move.
The requested funds enabled this Department to purchase and equip four van
type trucks with the necessary equipment and supplies needed to process all crime
scenes for physical evidence. Three of these vans were assigned to the operational
areas mentioned above and the fourth was held in reserve as a replacement or
supernumerary vehicle.
In addition, the funds provided the clerical help needed to staff the Laboratory
on a twenty four hour, seven day a week basis to provide for the reception of
evidentiary material at any time.
When the formation of the Evidence Technician Unit was announced, seventy-
five patrolmen applied for assignment to the Unit. The twenty men finally as-
signed were selected from the initial group of applicants after a rigid selection
process involving an aptitude test administered by a local university, prior experi-
ence as an oflicer and the fields of fingerprinting or photography education, and a
personal and departmental background check.
The 20 officers selected for this assignment attended an 80 hour training course
conducted by the local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and staff
personnel of the Laboratory Division and the Identification Bureau of the St.
Louis Police Department.
Subjects taught were photography and especially the use of the 4x5 press
camera, how to search for and collect latent prints, and how to identify and
collect physical evidence. At the end of the 80 hour course, the officers were
given assignments in predetermined areas and for the first week on the street
were accompanied by an experienced Identification man and a photographer who
assisted in resolving any difficulties of a technical nature.
On October 19, 1970 the program went operational under radio control. The
Evidence Technicians were directed to respond to all major crimes including
but not limited to homicides, robberies, burglaries, bombings, arsons and re-
covered stolen autos. In addition, an interim order establishing the ETU fvmction
was distributed to all officers and the Departments micro-wave television system
was utilized in explaining the operation to Department personnel.
When investigating officers determine that an ETU is required at a scene, they
contact the radio dispatcher by radio or telephone and an ETU is dispatched
to the scene.
Upon completing his assignment, the Evidence Technician completes a form
report that provides the staff office all the statistical data needed to maintain
close control over scheduling variables and work loads. Copies of this report
known as the "Evidence Technicians Report" are distributed to all interested
agencies and divisions of this Department.
The Evidence Technician's Program has been a positive and valuable addition
to the St. Tjouis Police Department. Statistics indicate substantial improvements
in all categoi-ies of evidence handled by that Unit. Especially rewarding was the
number of crime scenes processed for fingerprints which increased fourfold over
the years prior to the inception of the ETU. As a result of this increase, finger-
print identifications have increased 767f and are running at a rate that indi-
cates a much higher increase for 1973.
An important adjunct to the above mentioned statistics is that the average
response time for ETU service has decreased as operational and scheduling im-
provements have been made. In August of 1972, an expansion program financed
by High Impact Funds allowed a substantial increase in the number of imits
on the street by providing overtime payments to present ETU personnel who work
on their holidays, recreation and overtime days and vacations. The Impact Funds
were also used to purchase, equip and field two additional vans on each of two
watches that overlay the existing manning tables.
As a direct result of this expansion, ETU response time has dropped to an
average time of twenty two minutes per radio assignment. This in itself repre-
sents an impressive savings of patrol time by allowing the patrol officer to return
to service upon relinquishing the crime scene to the Evidence Technician.
The expansion of the ETU has also increased the number of crime scenes
serviced by this Unit. ETU assignments have increased from an average of 32
daily to a present average of 40. This figure indicates the expanded effort has
enabled our Department to competently process 36% of the index crimes that
occur daily within the City of St Louis.
United States Supreme Court decisions of the past decade have caused law
enforcement agencies to place greater emphasis on physical evidence collected
under legal conditions by competent personnel.
(2)
11,046
11,454
2,104
8,445
8,248
625
2,087
2,187
193
265
345
3,512
3,943
3,808
3 23
4,294
4,776
AAA
XX 11!
The needs of our modem society for a wide divergence of Police services
have placed an imposing task on Police Administrators who, restricted in their
efforts by lack of personnel and financial resources, must develop innovative ideas
to make what resources they do have stretch to their outer limits.
The Evidence Technician Unit is such an idea. It has amply demonstrated that
properly trained personnel given the proper equipment and leadership can in-
crease the recovery of physical evidence and thereby increase crime clearances at
the same time they save patrol time by relieving the patrol oflScers of routine
non-patrol related tasks.
EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN UNIT COMPARATIVE STATISTICS, 1970-72
Functions 11970 1971 1972
Radio assignments
Fingerprint searches
Prints recovered
Prints identified
Photography (assignments)
Physical evidence (assignments)
> All functions performed by individual departmental units.
2 None.
3 Assignments wherein laboratory personnel are called to crime scenes for technical reasons.
Mr. Steiger [presiding]. The committee will come to order please.
Counsel, call the next witnesses.
Mr, Lynch. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to introduce
to the committee Edwin D. Heath, Jr., who currently serves as director
of the criminal justice interface division of the Dallas Police De-
partment. He is the Dallas Police Department's chief legal adviser.
Mr. Heath has a bachelor's degree in business administration from
SMU, a J.D. degree from South Texas College of Law, and also
holds a master's degree and did postgraduate study in criminal law
at Southern Methodist L^niversity School of Law.
Mr. Heath, if you liave a prepared statement would you please
present it to the committee at this time.
STATEMENT OF EDWIN D. HEATH, JR., DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL JUS-
TICE INTERFACE DIVISION, POLICE DEPARTMENT, DALLAS,
TEX. ; ACCOMPANIED BY ARLYN J. BROWN, DIRECTOR, COMMU-
NITY SERVICES DIVISION
Mr. Heath. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee : My name is
Edwin D. Heath, Jr. As Mr. Lynch told you, I serve as director of
police with the Dallas, Tex., Police Department, where I am pres-
ently serving as director of the criminal justice interface division.
In this capacity, I act as chief in-house legal adviser to the Dallas
Police Department and assist the oiRce of the city attorney in pro-
viding counsel to the police department on legal affairs.
My colleague is Arlyn J. Brown. He is also a director of police
with the Dallas Police Department and presently commands the com-
munity services division. However, he previously commanded the
planning and research section. He is going to direct you on our newly
completed repeat offender study, which relates a pragmatic study
on repeat offenders. I will start the testimony with the description of
our legal adviser program.
We are appearing today at the invitation of your chairman and in
behalf of Chief of Police Frank Dyson and the Dallas Police Depart-
445
ment. Your chairman has requested that we provide the committee
with testimony relative to two programs of the Dallas Police Depart-
ment— our legal adviser program and a study in criminal recidivism
known as the "Dallas Repeat Offender Study."
[See material received for the record at the end of Mr. Heath's
testimony.]
Mr. Heath. The first subject upon which I have been asked to give
testimony is the Dallas Police Department's legal adviser program.
I would first like to give the committee some background information
concerning the development of the police legal adviser concept.
The first police legal unit was formed in New York City in 1907,
and has continued to this date, now being known as the legal division,
under the general supervision of a deputy commissioner in charge of
legal affairs. The concept grew very slowdy, and it was not until 1967
that the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Adminis-
tration of Criminal Justice clearly articulated the need for a police
legal unit in "Task Force Report : The Police." At that time, there
were only 14 cities with legal advisers, and 6 of these were employed
part time.
Following the establishment of what is now the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration, Federal funding was made available for
the establishment of police legal units. With the impetus of Federal
funding the program quickly grew to its present size, with over 174
law enforcement legal units — 107 city, 34 countv, 4 regional, 19 State,
3 university, and 7 Federal agencies.
The legal adviser program was greatly enhanced by the insight
and vision of Prof. Fred Inbau of the Northwestern University School
of Law. As a result of his efforts, the Ford Foundation in 1964 estab-
lished a grant at Northwestern to begin a police legal adviser program.
Selected attorneys were given fellowships to study criminal law and
serve as interns with police departments. This program was continued
until 1970, at which time it was transferred to the auspices of the Inter-
national Association of Chiefs of Police (lACP).
The lACP established a police legal center, which sen'-es as a clear-
inghouse, for police legal units, published legal periodicals, and con-
ducts annual training courses for newly appointed legal advisers.
In 1972, the lACP created a legal officers section within its organi-
zation to foster professional development and legal services to police
agencies. The legal advisers now meet with the lACP at their annual
convention and conduct seminar-type discussions on police legal
problems. The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration has just
awarded the lACP a $107,204 technical assistance grant to promote
training, publication, and development of new programs for police
legal miits.
The Dallas Police Department's legal miit was established on Janu-
ary 6, 1970, under a 1-year grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration. The unit was originally staffed by two attorneys and
a stenogi-apher. The mission was threefold :
(1) To provide consultative legal advice to the chief of police and
the command staff of the department ;
(2) To provide liaison legal services to the offices of the city
attorney, district attorney, and other criminal justice agencies; and
(3) To provide assistance in insendce and recruit training in legal
subjects.
446
In 1973 the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration awarded
the Dallas Police Department $186,000 under the impact program to
increase the size of the legal unit to six attorneys and supporting staff.
The thrust of the expanded program is to provide legal assistance to
all members of the department in order to more effectively reduce
street stranger-to-stranger crimes. The principal methods which we
are utilizing include:
(1) On-call legal assistance to field personnel in major crime cases.
(2) Increased consultative legal services to all levels of personnel
and not just the command and supervisory staff but the patrolmen
on the beat.
(3) A review of all criminal case reports — except traffic cases — filed
with the district attorney.
We are doing this because it was our observation we were losing ap-
proximately 30 percent of our cases through other "no bill," through
improper case preparation, and other problems which we want to re-
duce. We also found following "no bills," we were losing approxi-
mately 19 percent of our cases by dismissals, which meant we were
losing approximately 49 percent of our cases before they came up for
trial.
We are not the only agency that has that problem. Washington, D.C.,
I might add, is addressing itself to the same type of problem. The main
thing we hope to do through this grant is to improve the effectiveness
of the prosecution effort through better training, more thorough in-
vestigation, and improved case preparation, and assist them in pre-
paring better cases and screening out those cases that should be dis-
posed of by some diversionary method in the criminal justice system.
That is about all I have. I passed out to the committee our "stand-
ards of Operating Procedure" which serve somewhat as a model, I
hope, for all law enforcement agencies that are interested in the police
legal adviser concept.
Director Brown, who is with me, would like to talk about the "Repeat
Offender Study," which we have furnished you a copy of.
Mr. Lynch. Director Heath, your testimony is very, very interest-
ing, especially the fact that heretofore up to 49 percent of the cases
that your department was making were lost along the way.
Mr. Heath. That is right. These are part 1 index crimes.
Mr. Lynch. Would your judgment be that that is not uncommon in
other police agencies ?
Mr. Heath. Yes ; I believe this is true. The ones that I have talked to
that have kept realistic records find that this to be true. Although there
are differences in procedures from one jurisdiction to another I think
if they make a close analysis they will find the same thing is true.
Mr. Lynch. I think that is exceedingly interesting. We have all
heard, as you know, in the last several years a hue and cry that the
courts are letting the criminals go. It seems to me what you are say-
ing here this afternoon is perhaps sometimes it is not the courts. I
think your department is to be commended for taking concerted ac-
tion to try and prove it. I recognize these are sometimes very difficult
issues.
Do you, in the normal course of your duties, sir, give legal training
or quasi-legal training to policemen in your department?
447
Mr. Heath. Yes, sir, I do. I have not done a lot of teaching in the
last few months ; however, my legal staff tries to teach the areas where
we feel lawyers need to teach police, in police training. Such areas as
search and seizure, laws of arrest, the laws of evidence, the Code of
Criminal Procedure, this type of thing. We feel a lawyer can provide
great assistance in training. Such things as traffic code and some of the
municipal codes can be easily handled by an experienced sergeant, but
in the areas that we feel are the most fluid we do try to do as much
of the teaching and, hopefully, within the next few months, all of the
teaching in these areas.
Mr. Lynch. How large is the Dallas Police Department?
Mr. Heath. We have personnel authorization for 2,000 sworn men.
We are approximately 75 understrength because of an increase. We
just newly increased and anticipate making that up soon. We have an
additional 500 nonsworn people, some of which are parapolice ; that is,
people who do semipolice functions such as traffic direction, traffic con-
trol, and so forth.
Mr. Lynch. Your total legal staff, including you, will be six
attorneys ?
Mr. Heath. Six attorneys. One thing that is somewhat unique to our
system is the fact that one of our division stations operates on some-
what of a precinct station. We have one of our stations as a pilot for a
decentralization move within the department. We have one of our at-
torneys stationed there, and in the first 2 months of his work he is
only getting 10 percent loss in his cases. But he is in a position where
he works more closely with the officers, both the uniformed officers and
the criminal investigators. He is more or less elbow to elbow with them
and it is very relaxed, very informal. He is accessible to them.
Mr. Lynch. I wonder if you could tell the committee something
about the "on call'' legal assistance program. Is that operational yet?
Mr. Heath. It became operational this week.
Mr. Lynch. What would a lawyer do when he goes out to a serious
crime scene ?
Mr. Heath. If it is a serious crime scene, first of all, we do not go
unless we are requested by a field supervisor and sometimes the type
of questions we can ask will be handled over the telephone. Other
times it requires we physically go to the scene. I was called in last week
to a crime-against-persons case in what we thought at that time was
a kidnaping case. They requested that I come in and provide them
with some legal assistance.
Mr. Lynch. Could you tell us what they asked you? What it was
they needed to know ?
Mr. Heath. They wanted to know whether the particular type of
crime involved was a kidnaping or whether it was in violation of the
State law. As it turned out, it was an adoption arrangement, under
the table variety, that didn't involve a criminal act. But we had a lot
of misinformation and excited grandparents and other things involved.
It turned out there was no criminal activity involved.
Mr. Lynch. As a result of your being consulted no charges were
filed?
Mr. Heath. That is correct. No one was arrested. We brought the
parties to the station and by talking with the people and by getting
clear insight, having them communicate with one another on what
448
the problem was, no one Avas arrested; everybody was taken home bv
Wterbrjii;"te "rr ^r/^^^^^^^^"^ ^"-^^^ m the sLl
Mr T .^.T^ f '^'^'?;'' ^^^ "° ^^^«^d ^^s made of that.
Ml. 1.1 NCH. How much IS the program of whicli vou are director
costmg your department per annum ^ ^ airector
^ ^^■- He.^th. Wei], the total grant for the first year is $186 000 A
part of this was occasioned by the fact we also have a liaison unit th^
works with our courts which are composed of experienced pocen
Mfw^ W H "" "^ '''''' "' ?"^^ ^^^^ °f our^f elony-levKurtL
Mr. La ncii. Are they under your direction ^
Mr. Heath. Yes, they are.
.^\\ Pj""?.'-.^. wonder if you can tell the committee why you chose
to call this division, or why Chief Dyson chose to call it, the CrimS
Justice Interface Division? ^ v^inniiicii
as^ m^a'^ns^L^n/' t' ^^' T''^'^ ''^''' ^^^^^ ^^"^ ^^^^'^^^^^^ ^^'O^^ld serve
as a means tor interfacing the investigative activities of the police
agency with o her criminal justice activitives : The prosecutors the
court^, thej3robation and parole people; that we wou d bTsome'wav
i^afet.:^^;:;;^ '''''''-- '' '^ ^ ^"-^— ^^^^^' -^ -^^^ --
approach''''' ^ ^^'"'^ '^ '" ^ "^^'^ interesting title. It implies a systems
Mr. Heath. This is what we are trying to do
Mr. Lynch Do you, in fact, act as liaison, or do some of your attor-
Mr. Heath. Yes, we do. We didn't have an organized program of
this as such but we have a man, one of our attorneys, who meS r?o^
arly with the district attorney's office. We meet once a month wfSi
^^If T ^^ "'^^™^^ '?^'^ ^^ '""''^^ basis. They have also provided us
with a training course for four of my attorneys, a cooperative Irainin^
course with the district attorney's office tiaining
tion nkn wW?" ^"f^'^ ^^'^^T "^^ ""''' ^'''''''^ "^ «^« decentraliza-
duced "no bn ' r« ''''!.^!;' ^^-^'^V^" f torneys stationed, he ha^ re-
Mr. Heath From approximately 30 percent down to 10 percent
We hope this figure will hold; this varies. It is like the weather but
rTtedlvn'Yf o'^ *^if ' '' '''' ^'^'' ^'^'^ -^ -^ have tr'no bdl''
^T ^^' percent instead of 80.
Mr. Lynch[. Can a police department in 1973, in your iud^ment
function without its own in-house legal counsel responsive t'the
Mr. Heath. Well, sir, it can, of course. Many of them do but I
think the^department will operate much better if they "an get the
right kind of individual who will give them the legaf advke^ espe
" M? iVt'n T"^g ™' ''''^ "" ^f «^ ^^^^- in-housf legal problems.
Ml . l^\ i\ CH. 1 hank you vei-y much.
I have no further questions," Mr. Chairman.
mrouJ\^u''Zt^'' ^""t"'^ T' ^°"^" ^P^^^ting procedure I see an
mrtmpn f T ""V^T ']'^.'^^'^ '^ ^^ represent officers in the de-
fs S^^^^ ^'f^ '^^^'^^^ ]^b^^ '^''y r^<l"««t it. I assume that
is legal advice, also, other than on police matters ?
449
Mr. Heath. No, sir, we try to discourage that, sir. AVe try to hold
our legal advice strictly to the scope of employment-typo functions.
Occasionally, we might informally counsel with somebody that has a
personal problem and perhaps direct him to his private attorney —
maybe just point him in the right direction — ^but we make no effort to
give in-house, free legal service to employees as a job benefit.
Mr. Steiger. How about a member of the police personnel charged
with a crime in the line of duty? Would you be charged with their
defense ?
Mr. Heath. No, sir, I would not. If they were actually charged
with criminal violation, their employment would be terminated with
the department, in all likelihood. They would liave to have their own
private counsel. I occasionally do join with the city attorney's office
in defending officers in civil cases where this arises within the scope
of their employment. I am the only one that does that at this time, be-
cause the attorneys I have on the grant I want to be w^orking with
the men in the field and working directly on the crime problem. Mj^-
self , and one other attorney who is not in the grant, spent a little bit
of time on that. This varies from time to time, depending on the type.
Mr. Steigfj?. Is the function of the office to defend police person-
nel who are civilly charged in the line of duty ?
Mr. He.\th. I see it as an assistant function that should be pro-
vided by the city attorney, the corporation counsel, or something like
that. I don't think it should be the legal adviser's job to do this, be-
cause I feel that he gets heavily involved in litigation and his priority
should be directed more toward the enforcement effort. I think he
can provide a lot of expertise and assistance to the corporation counsel
or the city attorney or the city solicitor, whatever term you may use
in your jurisdiction, in preparing cases for trial. Save them a lot of
man-hours in investigation and getting a case ready for trial. And I
don't see that as a prime function because I feel like it would too
heavily take time that could be better spent in directing more toward
the crime effort..
Mr. Steiger. How long has this been in existence now ?
Mr. Heath. Since January 6, 1970.
Mr. Steiger. AAHiat is the reduction in "no bills" and dismissals;
what are the percentages for 1971 and 1972 ?
Mr. Heath. Maybe I didn't articulate that clearly. We didn't get
into this "no bill" and dismissal review of cases as such until March
of this year.
Mr. Steiger. I see.
Mr. Heath. Prior to that time it was just a broad consultative-type
thing, a liaison function, a training function. We really did the case-
review type of things.
Mr. Steiger. So 49 percent dismissal and "no bills" would be in-
cluded in the period you were involved ?
Mr. Heath. Right.
Mr. Steiger. Mr. Winn ?
Mr. Winn. Mr. Heath, I am not a lawyer; as a matter of fact, Mr.
Steiger and I are the only two on the whole committee that are not
lawyers. What types of civil cases were some of your patrolmen
involved in ?
450
Mr. Heath. What would they be involved in? It runs the gamvit.
We have some that are sued for allegedly false arrest, and others that
have been sued for various civil rights violations.
Mr. Winn, Give us some examples.
Mr. Heath. Give us some examples ? All right, sir.
Mr. Winn. What do you have the most of? Wliat are they most
accused of, false arrest ?
Mr. Heath. Most of them claim they were mistreated by the officers
following arrest, or that they were illegally detained on an improper
charge. Fortunately, so far, we have lost none of these.
Mr. Winn. Are the charges brought by individuals, civil rights
groups, or who?
Mr. Heath. A variety; some are brought by civil rights groups,
some are brought by individual counsel, some are brought by private
counsel.
Mr. Winn. Do you work closely with some of the leading civil rights
people as far as meeting and discussing these mutual problems with
them?
Mr. Heath. Well, sir, actually, they don't have any one body that
speaks for them, but I have talked to various groups at various times,
including some at SMU, and also with the bar association. But, so far,
I am willing to meet with anybody any time. Hopefully, we try to
learn something out of these suits to improve our training. Some of
them, I think, are maybe scurriously brought, I guess, but we do assess
the training need out of it ; that the officer did reveal something that
he shouldn't have done and we try to turn this into our recruit and
inservice training program so the thing won't happen again. Occa-
sionally, we will have to write a policy statement, a general order, a
special order, a memorandum-type order, to correct the situation where
there is a gap we don't have covered.
Mr. Winn. You haven't lost any ?
Mr. Heath. So far we haven't. I don't like to say that
Mr. Winn. I think that is very commendable. I think it shows your
training has made your officers and patrolmen aware of the problems
in dealing with the public.
Mr. Heath. We try to make this. We have a community services
program ; we have a program where we try to make the officers aware
of these things, but it is sometimes difficult when you are on the street.
Mr. Winn. A lot of times they can't always pull out their manual.
Mr. Heath. This is true.
Mr. Winn. Do you have refresher courses from time to time ?
Mr. Heath. Yes, sir; we do. What we try to do, although we are
not always successful in doing it, is give each officer 2 days a year
training — one in the fall and one in the spring — in which he goes to
the Academy for 8 hours of training in the way of a general refresher.
We also have other specialized training programs that go on as we
develop new programs. In our tactical or special operations division
we have them working on preventive crime programs, which I am a
little fuzzy on frankly, but we have put on some special training for
newly made supervisors, newly made detectives. We normally try to
give them some type of preservice training.
Mr. Winn. When did you get your money from LEAA ?
451
Mr. Heath. The first year, 1970, partial funding, and 1971 and
1972 on the city budget, and they are partially LEAA, the big part,
and then our grant application, the city council as a part of the grant
application agreed to continue this program beyond the period of
Federal funding, if it proved successful. We made a commitment to
that.
Mr. Winn. I was going to ask. if you didn't get the LEAA funds
do you think the city would still pick up the tab ?
Mr. Heath. Yes. sir; I do. It was positively written in the grant
they would and council approved the grant that way.
Mr. Winn. Thank you very much. No further questions.
Mr. Steiger. I wouldn't want Mr. Lynch's comment that the 49-
percent dismissal of "no bills" were a reflection of some inadequacy
in the personnel of the department to go unchallenged. From my lay
view, the grounds for dismissal on "no bill" are frequently just as
spurious as some of the civil actions to which you referred that are
brought against police personnel. "WHiile I think the defense against
them that you are providing is excellent, I don't think you are ever
going to eliminate that kind of activity,
Mr. Heath. No, sir ; you will not.
Mr. Steiger. It is a fact of life, unfortunately, and it is one that
I, as my colleague points out, as a nonmember of the bar, I blame the
bar association for condoning the kind of defense activities that are
now becoming acceptable practice today across the Nation. The kind
of thing that frequently results in "no bill" and dismissals, in which
there is no defense on the part of the department.
But I just want the record to reflect my own personal view on that.
I believe Director Brown has an offering for us. If you would
proceed with that, Mr. Brown, we would appreciate it.
Statement of Arlyn J. Brown
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To begin with, I would like to say we will be discussing this hand-
out. I hope you have them on your desk. This is a policeman's view
of what is happening in our criminal justice system.
I would also like to point out to the committee, Mr. Lynch, that
it is not a federally funded program in any way. This was an in-
house development by my division, planning, and research division,
of the police department. Our charge from Chief Dyson w^as to deter-
mine how much crime was being committed in Dallas by repeat
offenders. That is a very difficult assignment when you are not arrest-
ing all of the people who commit crime.
However, we embarked on it, and what you have before you is the
consequence of our efforts. The term "repeat offender"' for the pur-
poses of this study differs from a definition of "recidivist" or indeed
a definition of "repeat offender'' in many instances. We use the term
"repeat offender" to mean anyone who had previously been arrested
and filed upon by a police agency for a felony or major misdemeanor,
and who was subsequently rearrested and charged with another felony
or major misdemeanor or offense by the Dallas police.
The methodology used in our research included : ( 1 ) A review of the
literature; (2) compilation of statistics on jail and prison inmates;
452
(3) interviews with inmates in the Texas Department of Corrections
in Huntsville; and (4) longitudinal tracking of our cases to assess
their progress and disposition.
From this study we were able to document the following conclusions :
(1) Almost 60 percent of all Dallas crime is committed by
repeat offenders ;
(2) Repeat offenders account for a disproportionate number
of crime when compared with first offenders. The ratio in our
study was 90 to 10 crimes cleared by arrest of repeat offender
versus firet offender ; and
(3) A major crime distribution study revealed quite a number
of offsetting repeat offender cases.
For instance, out of our 1,067 whom we chose at random for our
longitudinal research we found 49 of them were murderers or were
charged with murder's. But 57 percent of those were repeat offenders ;
40 of those 1,067 were charged with rape and, in this particular in-
stance, less than 50 percent were repeat offenders and that was the
only category in the seven index crime. In robbery, 107 of them had
been charged with robbery and 6.45 percent were repeat offenders.
I will not belabor the point but the rest of the crime categories had
more than 50 percent experience in repeat offenders having committed
the crime.
Mr. Winn. Were they all 50 percent or more ?
Mr. Brown. Except rape. Rape was the only one, Mr. Winn. Our
next conclusion was that the largest fallout of the system occurs
between — and I use "fallout" in the system — let me stop a second to
explain that. If every report of a crime resulted in a prosecution for
that crime you might consider that to be an optimum system and any-
thing that did not might be considered as fallout. Any crime that did
not result in an arrest and prosecution might be considered a fallout.
We determined that the major fallout in that system resulted be-
tween the reporting of the crime and the arrest and that fallout was
somewhere around 70 percent. In other words, 70 percent of the re-
ported crimes never were cleared, and between arrests and case filed.
In this instance, we determined our prosecution rate was 49.5 percent
of the cases we cleared. We filed a case. I hope the committee is recog-
nizing this is a rather objective study and it takes a pretty good swipe
at some of our own practices.
Our next determination was that repeat offenders admitted to —
this is selective — 55 times as many crimes in Huntsville as first of-
fenders. Repeat offenders often amass huge bonds while continuing
their careers in crime. One offender in Dallas, during our research, had
$108,000 worth of outstanding bonds.
There was an average of 9 months delay from arrest to trial in
felony cases. This is true despite the fact that the courts of Dallas
County dispose of more cases annually than any other county in the
State.
Information concerning criminal justice as a system is almost im-
possible to obtain due to antiquated information handling systems.
It turns out that the criminal justice system in our community and
possibly many others grew like Topsy from a sheriff or town marshal
who kept nondescript-type records to what we now have. It was im-
possible for my researchers to determine, for instance, what was the
453
disposition of all of the burglary cases in Dallas County for any given
period of time. They are not filed that way. They are only filed by
the name of the defendant. Consequently, it took a manual hand search
all of the way through the system to develop the information we de-
veloped on these 1,067 individual cases.
Our final conclusion was concurrent sentencing; that is, where a
man would be arrested and charged with more than one case who would
be arrested and allowed to serve his sentences all at the same time for
those cases. Concurrent sentencing coupled with bond abuse and long
trial delays create a "free crime ethic" in the criminal subculture. In
other words, anything he did after the first one was free. And it creates
this ethic, or this feeling, or belief, or reality, in the criminal subcul-
ture. Indeed, it creates an atmosphere where if a man is arrested and
charged with a crime — who may lose his job by virtue of that action,
who indeed may incur attorney expenses and bond expenses and other
factors, who is allowed to be on the street for 9 months awaiting this
criminal action against him — it might be said he is indeed driven to
create additional crimes. And certainly, if there is no sanction against
him should he commit additional crimes I think that upholds our belief.
There is this attitude in the criminal subculture.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Brown, unfortunately, I missed the first part
of your testimony. You seem to be presenting a most interesting study
having to do with recidivism. I would appreciate it if you would sum-
marize what you discovered in this study and what your recommenda-
tions are growing out of the study you have made as to how crime could
be averted.
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. To begin with, our charge, Mr. Pepper, from
Chief Dyson, our chief, was to find out how much crime is being
committed in Dallas by repeat offenders. Additionally, I pointed out
it is A'ery difficult to determine who is committing your crime when
you are only clearing 25 percent of those crimes, or roughly, 25 per-
cent of those crimes. So, our research largely has to draw on cir-
cumstantial evidence against this repeat offender. However, we docu-
mented a number of things that we were able to prove, using random
sampling techniques, using 1,067 randomly chosen individual cases
filed by the Dallas Police Department, and then tracking them.
It was our overall conclusion that almost 60 percent of the crime in
Dallas, is being committed by these repeat offenders, and that they
commit a disproportionate number of crimes.
Chairman Pepper. Did you go back in your study to determine
whether or not these repeat offenders had any juvenile delinquency rec-
ord, or how early in the life of those individuals their dereliction had
occurred.
Mr. Brown. We asked that question. We interviewed 99 inmates
from Dallas in the diagnostic center of the department of corrections
in Huntsville, and we asked that question. We were unable to track
these people through into the juvenile system and did not, indeed, try
to do that. But quite a few of those people indicated — and we have the
exact number somewhere in this report — they had previously been
handled as juveniles.
Chairman Pepper. I asked that question because I have had a feel-
ing from the testimony that we received from numerous juvenile court
judges that a large part, perhaps the majority, if not three-fourths
454
of the people, who are later found to be in penal institutions as a result
of being convicted of crime started their delinquency, their personal
conduct, below 20 years of age.
Mr. Brown. We did not try to carry into the juvenile system, inas-
much as those records quite often are even more difficult to obtain than
the records we were searching. Significantly, however, we did note in
a study called Delinquency in a Birth Cohort by three gentlemen, Mr.
Wolfgang, Mr. Figlio, and Mr. Sellin — and it is in the report here —
it was their finding that a very small percent of both cohort — you
know, that is anyone who is born during the same year — and it was
their finding that they took all of the children born in a mid-1940 year
in Philadelphia, and they tracked these people throughout their young
adult life. They found that approximately 18 percent of those risk
cohorts were responsible for over 50 percent of the crimes committed
by the entire universe of that study. Which indicates, to me at least,
that the chronic juvenile offender is the one who carries over and be-
comes your repeating offender. I think this would probably bear out.
Chairman Pepper. These relatively few people are responsible for
most of the crime ; is that the case ?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Chairman Pepper. The problem is what to do with those relatively
few people. Did you come up with recommendations ?
Mr. Brown. Yes, we did. We made five recommendations based on
this study. The first is to control the repeat offender; the criminal jus-
tice system must become a true system. By this, we mean a system that
develops information about itself, which allows an overview of it,
which allows you to evaluate it and which is interrelated, one compo-
nent complementing and indeed functioning hand in hand with the
other component.
Second, we recommend there should be a prosecution policy within
a police department which is understood bj' each component of the
criminal justice system, by the public, and most importantly by the
criminal himself.
We found, for instance, our prosecution policy in the department
was not firm, in that we really didn't understand ourselves, what we
were doing about our prosecutions and, indeed, we found that we had
detectives and supervisors making decisions about whether or not to
file cases. It was our conclusion this was probably not a prerogative
of the police department but rather a prerogative of the district at-
torney who is constituted with that responsibility. And if we make that
determination off in a corner, then the district attorney doesn't have
sufficient information to make an intelligent determination as to how
many cases to file or what to ask for in regard to his prosecution.
Next, we recommend that in order to reduce crime the criminal
court should serve justice as rapidly as is practicable after indictment
and, certainly, sooner than 9 months.
Chairman Pepper. Has your supreme court or your highest appel-
late court imposed any limit; that is, fixed any time within which
defendants charged with crime would be brought to trial ?
Mr. Brown. No, sir.
Chairman Pepper. Our supreme court in Florida is pretty firm.
They fixed a 60-day period. In the beginning many cases were dis-
missed because the prosecution had not brought the defendant to
455
trial within that period. There seems to be a growing tendency toward
that kind of action on the part of the appellate court as one way to
shorten the delay between the time the man is charged with a crime
and the time he is brought to trial.
Mr. Brown. The legislature of the State should pass laws that
would increase the difficulty faced by a repeat offender in obtaining
subsequent bonds when he commits further offenses while on bond
and should devise additional sanctions for offenses committed while on
bond.
The legislators of the State should develop legislation preventing
the use of concurrent sentences for persons who are repeat offenders.
Chairman Pepper. Do you have the repeat offender log where you
get a more severe sentence after you have been convicted for two fel-
onies and then a third one ?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Chairman Pepper. Do you have a much heavier sentence imposed ?
Mr. Brown. It was our finding that we do have a habitual offender
law in Texas, and it was our finding in our cases — and I say, "our
cases" meaning the Dallas Police Department cases filed — that the
habitual offender law was very seldom invoked.
Chairman Pepper. Did you go into the question of the correctional
institutions and what should be done ? You are talking now about a
relatively small number of people who commit most of the crime. It
is one thing to lock them up in an institution ; it is another thing to
know what to do with them to prevent them from becoming recidivists.
Did you go into that study ?
Mr. Brown. No, we didn't, Mr. Pepper. I think probably that is
out of our line. We have some ideas and attitudes about that, but being
police oriented and our studies being in the realm of police work I am
afraid we would not be very good witnesses in that respect.
That completes my statement.
Mr. Lynch. Director Brown, I wonder if you can tell the committee
how many copies of the study were published and to whom they were
disseminated ?
Mr. Brown. We printed 500 copies of it. We have disseminated
them to the Texas Criminal Justice Council, Dallas area, our own
governing body, and the county governing body.
Mr. Lynch.' Has this study been printed in your local newspaper?
Mr. Brown. Some portions and excerpts have been printed. We
have also made it available to LEAA, their reference library, and
lACP, and a number of other assorted people we thought would be
interested.
Mr. Lynch. Has this study been sent to your local prosecutor and
court officials?
Mr. Brown. Absolutely ; they saw it in its early development stage,
however.
Mr. Brown. Have any changes in the system been brought about
based on your finding?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. I am happy to say one of the things we did
was do a lapsed -time study on courts. Our prosecutor, in a very posi-
tive manner, took that lapsed-time study and went to Austin and justi-
fied two new courts for Dallas. Secondly, the Dallas Area of Criminal
Justice Council which consists of our county commissioners, the city
95-158 O— 73— pt. 1 -30
456
managers, and individuals such as that, have authorized Chief Dyson
to form a task force consisting of he. Judge Mead of Dallas, the
sheriff, Mr. Ledbetter, who is our probation officer. This task force
is to deal with the recommendations and the findings of this study.
Mr. Lynch. Other than the Washington, D.C., study, which from
my understanding was somewhat more modest in scope than this, do
you know of any police department which has commissioned its own
recidivism study ?
Mr. Brown. No, sir. I don't, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions, but I
would ask that this "Dallas Repeat Offender Study" be incorporated
in our record here today.
Chairman Pepper. Without objection, it will be received for the
record.
[For the study mentioned above, see material received for the
record at the end of Mr. Heath's testimony.]
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Steiger^
Mr. Steiger. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate Director
Brown for what is clearly as an objective approach to this problem
as I have seen.
Mr. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Steiger. The only question I have, Mr. Brown, and I suspect
it would be a combination of item No. 3, in which you admonish the
court to serve justice as rapidly as possible, and item No. 5, in which
you disavow the usage of the concurrent sentencing, both of which
led to what you call the crime-free ethic in which once a man is filed,
he is fixed for whatever else he chooses to do.
You would be interested to know this is not unique. In fact, in Wash-
ington, we have perhaps the biggest volume of that kind of activity be-
cause we are under the Federal Bail Bond Act, with six indexes of bail
under which a person can be released. The bail is valid for all but it is
creating havoc.
The result is, of course, when the guy is raising money for his de-
fense— which I don't buy, frankly — ^tliat guy goes out and proceeds to
steal as rapidly as possible, because he is going to go to jail and he
wants a nest egg when he gets out. He won't suffer the consequences of
subsequent crimes because of the backlog in the courts, which leads to
the plea bargaining, which means he can select the crime he can most
likely serve time for and cop out on that one, in exchange to waiving on
the others.
You didn't address yourself to that in your remarks. Maybe there
is no plea bargaining in Dallas.
Mr. Brown. Yes ; there is.
Mr. Steiger. I suspected there might be. Actually, I think your con-
clusions are certainly very valid. There is, obviously, no way to leg-
islate plea bargaining out of existence. On the other hand, clearly
without a backlog and the pressures on the courts, the impetus of plea
bargaining will be reduced. So I think you have hit the nail on the
head. I would be very interested to see if your recommendations are
implemented.
I think it would be conjecture on your part to guess how far it will
be implemented.
Mr. Brown. I can report to you some of these things that are hap-
pening. As I mentioned before, we do now have 2,000 impact courts.
457
I say impact courts meaning they are under the impact program in
Dallas, Dallas being another impact city. This task force that Chief
Dyson chaii-s has begun to try to undei-stand if it is possible to pri-
oritize cases. These questions are being asked now and a system of
prioritization has been proposed. However, there are legal implica-
tions there and I am sure my colleague, Mr. Heath, w^ill get a chance
to tell us if those are proper things to do. But prioritization of cases
against a person who has shown himself in the instance of the one per-
son I noted, who had $108,000 worth of bonds, would occur to me as a
policeman that it would not to be an unrealistic thing to give this man
a little more priority of trial than maybe a fii*st offender.
Mr. Steiger. Thank you. No further questions.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Winn ?
Mr. Winn, Mr. Chaimian, I have no questions. I think your sum-
mary is very good, except I question your third recommendation be-
cause I don't think it really says anything : "In order to reduce crime,
the criminal court should serve justice as rapidly as is practical after
indictment."
To me it is weak. You have such a variation of opinion of what is
"as rapidly as practical." I mean, I think you left it open-end and, as
thorough as the rest of the study is — and I think, Director Brown, this
is an outstanding document. I certainly intend to tiy to get a few extra
copies and put it in the hands of some of my law enforcement people
in my area.
Mr. Brown. We will be happy to respond to any request to our de-
partment. If you just address them to me, we would be happy. I might
say, in response to that question, Mr. Winn, I was at a loss to say what
is practical, too. Justice Burger, however, had some points on that, as
I recall. It was something like — I am sure my colleague would know
better than I — 2 months.
Mr. Winn. Yes. I think all of us have seen publicized 60 to 90 days ;
that we hear frequently, as you ix)inted out.
I have been reading pages 12 and 13, some of these Dallas case his-
tories. They read like case histories of city after city after city that
this committee has visited. Some have 15 to 20 different type offenses
and still these people are right back on the streets; which is your
main concern.
Until yesterday, I was not aware we had any room in our jails in the
District of Columbia. For 4 years I was on the District of Columbia
Committee, and we heard there was no room for offenders. They had
to let them go because they had no place to put them, particularly
young people. They put them in with hardened criminals or sent them
out to Lorton, which is no bargain.
The facilities are another problem. You could probably do another
study, I am sure, on the various facilities around.
I want to commend you on your study. I don't know whether 60
or 90 days is right, but this 9-month stuff that is going on is ridiculous.
Thank you.
Mr. Heath. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a statement to Mr.
Steiger to clear the record on one question he asked me.
Sir, you asked me about the suits that we had been involved in.
There was one case that we did settle out of court. So, when I told you
we had not lost any, I did not mean to take that one into consideration.
458
Also, I want to exclude traffic accidents from that, because I don't
get involved in that type of defense.
Chairman Peppkr. Director Brown, I want to join my colleagues in
commending you and your department in the highest way for this
magnificent study you made and presented. I would certainly like to
get extra copies myself.
Do you know of any other department, agency, or authority any-
where in the country that has made similar studies ? We would like to
have access to them.
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. The FBI does an excellent study, a careers in
crime study. As a matter of fact, we have documented some of their
findings in our study. I know Mr. Adimand Keene with the FBI in the
Crime Reporting Section, I think, puts that study together, and he
has been most helpful and supportive of us.
Chairman Pepper. You are getting at the very heart of this problem.
I talked to a chief of police the other day, in company with our two
counsels, and I was a little discouraged when I left the conference with
this chief of police because I thought he sort of assumed there were such
a number of people that were going to commit crime, but there wasn't
an awful lot you could do. You practically had to accept the fact there
were certain people that had some sort of predilection toward crime
and some sort of antisocial attitude or character that meant as long
as those people were in our society you could expect to see them com-
mitting crimes and expect to see crime committed.
You go through the prisons, as all of us have done many times, and
you will see types of people ; most of them relatively uneducated peo-
ple with little skills, a lot of them school dropouts and the like. I am
not saying poverty in any sense of the word justifies anybody commit-
ting crime, but it does look like there are certain people who have some
sort of instability of character, some sort of peculiar makeup that gets
them into crime or permits them to get into the criminal group ; doesn't
it?
Mr. Brown. Yes ; it does.
Chairman Pepper. If we could go back far enough in their lives and
find the first manifestation of that antisocial attitude it would obvious-
ly be helpful in trying to keep them from becoming criminals when
they grow to an older age. I have heard schoolteachers say, that you
observe in the lowest grades, second or third grade, symptoms of activi-
ties on the part of young people that are warning signs that they feel
may be of that peculiar constitution that permits them or stimulates
them later toward crime.
It would seem to me to be a study that should be carefully made as
to whether we might put emphasis on trying to straighten out those
459
whose lives are beginning to be warped, as it were, at a tender age and,
in that way, maybe, prevent crime.
Have you any comment on that?
Mr. Brown. Yes, I do. I agree with you, sir. Chief Dyson agrees
with you, because we have discussed this a number of times.
One of the people we spoke to about this very problem was Dr. Hol-
brook. Dr. John Holbrook, chief psychiatrist for the Texas Depart-
ment of Corrections. Dr. Holbrook is very familiar with workings of
the sociopathic mind. It is his opinion — we sought the need to say some
of the things Dr. Holbrook said to us, although we were not able to
conclude or go further into that — sociopaths can be identified and that
he is responsible for many of our unsolved crimes, being a smarter
criminal than the ones he accuses us of catching. And he says you are
only catching the low and slow ones, you are not catching the fast
criminals.
He challenged us and challenged Chief Dyson, and we agree with
you, Mr. Pepper, that there should be a way to hopefully help the
individual before he gets into this role of repeating, I think it will
probably take someone with more intellect than a policeman like my-
self, but these are fascinating things. If we could short stop that career
early it would just be tremendous.
Chairman Pepper. If a child has an ear defect, or speech defect, or
sight defect, or stammering defect, and certain other physical defects,
we have programs for them. But if the child develops that instability
or incorrigibility, that indicates that he is becoming an antisocial per-
son, we don't have many programs for them; do we?
Mr. Brown. No, sir.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much.
Please carry the commendation of this committee to your depart-
ment. We commend you for what you have done.
Mr. Brown. I certainly will. And, again, Chief Dyson, had he not
had legislative problems in Austin that were very, very pressing and
very intense would have been here. He asked us to assure you that he
would.
Chairman Pepper, Thank you.
[The following material, previously referred to, was received for the
record :]
460
DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERFACE DIVISION
Operating Procedure
division purposes and functions
The purpose and function of the Criminal Justice Interface Division
is:
1. To provide consultative legal services to the Chief
of Police, the Assistant Chiefs of Police, supervi-
sory officers and other personnel of the Department;
2. To provide liaison services between the Police De-
partment, the City Attorney's Office, the District
Attorney's Office, the Federal Prosecuting Agencies,
and other agencies of the criminal justice system;
3. To provide case review on all prosecution reports of
IMPACT (stranger-to-stranger) and Part I, F.B.I. In-
dex Crimes submitted to the Office of the District
Attorney for prosecution;
4. To monitor the disposition of criminal cases by the
Office of the District Attorney. Cases resulting in
"no-bill" actions by the Dallas County Grand Jury or
dismissals by the courts will be closely monitored
for weaknesses or deficiencies in police investiga-
tion, reporting techniques, and case preparation;
5. To assist in the development of policy statements
such as special orders, rules and regulations which
affect legal procedures of the Department;
ma-
To assist the Director of Training in preparing
terial and instructing on legal matters;
To assist in legal proceedings affecting Departmental
personnel as requested by the City Attorney and Dist-
rict Attorney or specifically directed by the Chief
of Police;
To assist on special projects and programs established
by the Chief of Police, and;
To provide liaison v:" ch the Dallas B?r and tlie State
Ba^- of Texas on le^;n.! i.-ijL'cjrs affecting police opera-
tions .
461
THE IMPACT PROGRAM
On December 7, 1972, the Dallas Police Department made an appli-
cation for the three [3) year grant under the provisions of the
"IMPACT" program of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
of the United States Department of Justice for an expansion of
the Criminal Justice Interface Division to accomplish the follow-
ing goals and objectives:
1. Implement new systems and procedures to more effectively
handle offenders of these specific types of crimes.
(IMPACT stranger-to-stranger crimes).
2. Improve organizational effectiveness of the criminal
justice system.
3. Promiote coordination and free exchange of information
among criminal justice entities.
On January 15, 1973, this grant application was approved by the
Texas Criminal Justice Council which is the state criminal justice
planning agency 'for the State of Texas. Funding was received in
February of 1973., and the program becam.e operational on March 1,
1973. To accomplish these goals and objectives, the following
specific objectives were set for the Criminal Justice Interface
Division :
1. To reduce the rate of "no-bill" actions by the Dallas
County Grand Jury in Part I Index Crimes - specifically,
stranger-to-stranger crimes - from the current rate of
approximately 30^ to a maximum of 20% within three
years: 2% the first year, 4'd the second year, and 4%
the third year. If this objective can be accomplished
in less time, a further reduction will be sought.
2. To reduce the number of cases dismissed after indict-
m.ent or the filing of a complaint-information in major
misdemeanor cases, in stranger- to-stranger crimes, from
approximately 18* to a maximum of 12% within three
years: 2% the first year, 21 the second year, and 2% the
third year. If this .objective can be accomplished in
Ics.s tii.'v-}, r. furthcv r ^vcllcn ivill be sought.
All programs of the Criminal Justice Interface Division will be
directed to the accomplishment of these objectives
462
DIVISION PROCEDURES
I. Command and Accountability
A. The Criminal Justice Interface Division shall be com-
manded by a Director, who is a licensed attorney, and
is directly responsible to the Assistant Chief of the
Special Services Bureau for the performance of Division
purposes and functions.
B. The Division shall have such other personnel as may be
authorized. by the Chief of Police.
II. Command Responsibility
A. The Commander of the Criminal Justice Interface Division
will be responsible for providing consultative legal
services to the Chief of Police, the Assistant Chiefs
of Police, supervisory officers and other personnel of
the Department. He shall conduct such other liaison
missions as the Chief of Police shall request.
B. Assistant City Attorneys assigned to the Police Depart-
ment will be under the day-to-day direction of the Divi-
sion Commander, but shall remain under the overall
jurisdiction of the City Attorney. All personnel actions
involving these personnel will be administered by the
City Attorney.
III. Hours of Assignments
A. The normal hours of duty for the Criminal Justice Inter-
face Division shall be from 8:15 a.m. until 5:15 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. The sworn personnel of the
Criminal Justice Interface Division shall work such hours
as are necessary to fulfill their mission regardless of
the time or date.
B. Attorneys assigned to the Division will be subject to
call twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven days a week.
One attorney will be designated as "Duty Legal Advisor" on
a rotating, bi-weekly basis, and will be called to the
scene of all major crimes.
463
IV. Personnel Authorizations
A. The following personnel will be authorized by the Police
Department:
1. Director of Police - Division Commander
2. Director of Police - Chief of Court Liaison Services
3. Sergeant of Police (1) - Supervise court liaison
investigators
4. Investigators/Patrolman (11) - Court Liaison Services
a. 1 for each of the nine district courts
b. 1 for the juvenile courts
c. 1 for the County Juvenile Department
5. Police Clerk 6 (1) - Supervise office administration
6. Stenographer 5 (2) - Secretarial services
B. The following personnel will be authorized for assignment
to the Police Department by the Office of the City
Attorney:
1. Assistant City Attorney Grade 19 (3)
2. Assistant City Attorney Grade 16 (1)
464
LEGAL SERVICES PROCEDURES
I. Consultative legal services
A. Consultative legal services will be given to the Chief
o£ Police, Assistant Chiefs of Police, command, and
supervisory personnel of the Dallas Police Department.
B. Consultative legal services to police officers and
civilian personnel will be given through their imme-
diate supervisors.
C. Consultative legal services will not be given to other
departments of the City of Dallas. Such inquiries will
be referred to the Office of the City Attorney.
II. Nature of legal services
A. Legal advice will be given as advice and not as a command
or direction to personnel requesting advice. In serious
cases, the attorney receiving requests will contact the
Director of the Criminal Justice Interface Division.
B. Legal advice will not be given to settle disputes between
superior and subordinate personnel except where such
advice has direct bearing on legal matters affecting
• the Department.
III. Internal Affairs Investigations and Complaints
A. Attorneys and other personnel of the Criminal Justice
Interface Division will not receive complaints about po-
lice personnel or involve their actions in internal com-
plaint cases except on direction of the Director of the
Criminal Justice Interface Division.
B. Complaints against police department personnel will be
referred directly to the Internal Affairs Division in
accordance with General Order 70-6.
IV. Public Inquires
A. Requests from members of the public for information will
be honored insofar as it does not amount to public legal
advice .
B. Persons seeking legal advice should be referred to the
Dallas Bar Association Lawyer Referral Service or the
Legal Aid Unit of Dallas County as appropriate.
465
V. Field Services
A. One attorney of the Criminal Justice Interface Division
will be designated as the "Duty Legal Advisor" for a two-
week period on a rotation basis.
B. The Duty Legal Advisor will respond to field requests for
legal services on any major crime.
C. The Duty Legal Advisor will be expected to respond to
any emergency call from the Communications Center where
field legal services are needed on major crimes on a
twenty-four (24) hour basis,
VI. Case review procedures
A. An attorney will review all IMPACT (stranger-to-stranger)
crime prosecution reports before they are filed with the
Office of the District Attorney. All Part I Index Crimes
as classified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Uniform Crime Reporting System will also be reviewed.
B. The review of prosecution reports will not delay the
filing of criminal cases as required by General Order
70-2. A review may be made immediately after filing
where a review would delay the processing of a criminal
case.
C. Any offense indicating the need for further investigation
will be returned to the appropriate investigating section
through their Division Commander. A log will be maintained
of all cases returned for further investigation or infor-
mation.
III. Review of "no-billed" and dismissed cases
A. Attorneys will review all criminal cases involving IMPACT
offenses and Part I Index Crime offenses which are "no-
billed" by the Dallas County Grand Jury. The delibera-
tions of the Grand Jury are secret by law. Review and
comments will be made only with the Assistant District
Attorney assigned to the Grand Jury. Individual grand
jurors will never be questioned about their actions^
B. Cases involving IMPACT crimes and Part I Index crimes
which are dismissed after indictment but before trial will
be reviewed by an attorney. Personnel assigned as court
liaison investigators will make a record of all cases
466
dismissed and report them through their supervisory-
personnel to the Director of the Criminal Justice Inter-
face Division. An attorney will review any such dis-
missed case with the chief prosecutor of the court that
the case was dismissed in to determine if the dismissal
was the result of a failure of police investigation or
other police procedures. Records will be maintained on
the causes of dismissals which relate to police procedures
and action will be taken to eliminate deficient investi-
gation through training, improved investigative procedures,
or improved reporting.
VIII. Major Crime Investigation Assistance
A. An attorney will be assigned on request to assist an in-
vestigating officer on any major crime requiring legal
advice or assistance. Major crimes shall include - but
not be limited to - murder, armed robbery, kidnapping,
burglary, theft, and narcotics violations.
B. An attorney will be notified and will immediately assist
in the investigation of any case where deadly force is
used by or against a member of the Department which results
in death or serious bodily injury.
IX. Civil Distrubances or Mass Arrests '
A. In the event of riot, civil disturbance, disorder, or un-
lawful assembly, an attorney shall report to the field
command post or the Office of the Chief, as may be appo-
priate.
B. The Director of the Criminal Justice Interface Division
shall act as liaison with the Office of the City Attorney,
the State Attorney, and courts for the purpose of the
establishment of any legal directives necessitated by the
emergent situation. This includes, but is net limited
to, mass arrest procedures, abbreviated arrest and pro-
cessing forms, and protection of the rights of police
officers and arrestees.
X. Legal Opinions and Written Directives
A. Attorneys will give oral opinions on any tequest for legal
advice from members of the Departmant.
B. Formal written "City Attorney" opinions will not be issued
without prior approval of the City Attorney.
C. Memorandums, Special Orders, and General Orders will not be
issued until approved by tlie Division Commander and staFfed
with command personnel as appropriate.
467
8
a.
01
<ft
Ul
(1
H
1
^i
u-
a
Ul
(U
10
c
iH
M
0
>^-
-u
H
-u
I)
«;
ki
Q.
»H
01
c
0
••H
■u
C M
IV
0 C
(71
q
•H 0
^■•'H
(1
-U -H
•
■u
■'^
(J -u
U)
c
U)
o m
m
0
lO >^
u
i
"M
t.
u
0
1^
m
■H
ID n,
V(
H
Q
ui o
'-^
•H
■C
XI -1
tj
14
■u
r; m
i;
■J
•'H
■-(
(1
Cn 0
p
:>H
D o
■•-f
H Q.
Li
q (0
o
<u
O --I
>
o
x;
U) -u o
(il 1-1 -u
O 'J
4j -u 'a
r, O 3
a-
468
PERSONNEL DUTIES
I. Director of Police - Division Commander:
A. Command the Criminal Justice Interface Division and serve
as chief in-house legal counsel to the Chief of Police,
the command staff, and supervisory personnel of the
Dallas Police Department;
B. Serve as principal liaison officer in legal matters in-
volving criminal justice agencies;
C. Directly support the City Attorney and his assistants in
legal matters involving the Police Department;
D. Develop programs, plans, and projects to interface police
enforcement activities with other agencies in the criminal
justice system;
E. Be responsible for planning and coordination of legal
matters within the Department;
F. Develop programs, plans, and projects for more effective
legal aid and services to Police Department personnel;
G. Coordinate with Director of Training for legal subjects
in basic, advanced, and specialized training programs;
H. Develop policy statements, general orders, special orders,
procedures, and policies of the Department to assure
compliance with new legal requirements, monitor existing
general orders, special orders, policies and procedures
of the Department to assure compliance with legal re-
quirements ;
I. Monitor and coordinate Departmental legislative programs
with the City Attorney's Office and at congressional,
state, and local levels.
II. Director of Police - Chief of Court Liaison Services
A. Command personnel assigned as liaison with the district
% courts, the county courts, the juvenile courts, and the
County Juvenile Department;
' B. Closely monitor prosecution reports in cooperation with
other attorneys to see that prosecution reports are cor-
rectly filed, that the investigation is complete, and that
all legal problems have been resolved;
469
C. Monitor courtroom testimony of officers in court for the
purpose of improving case preparation and witness presen-
tation to the courts, and;
D. Monitor dispositions of cases prosecuted in county and
district courts.
III. 3 Police Attorneys, Grade 19; 1 Police Attorney, Grade 16:
A. The duties of one Attorney, the Coordinating Attorney, will
be as follows:
1. To act as project coordinator and serve as the
principal liaison officer with the District Attor-
ney and other criminal justice agencies concerned
with the investigation and prosecution of stranger-
to-stranger crimes;
2. Be responsible for program development to improve
legal services to the Police Department and to
improve coordination and cooperation between the
Police Department and other agencies of the criminal
justice system;
3. Develop policy statements such as general orders,
special orders, and directives on legal matters in-
volving police operation;
4 .■ Review existing general orders, memorandums and
directives of a legal nature to insure that such
material is correct in legal areas and is current
with the latest judicial decisions and legislative
enactments;
5. Review case preparation procedures and evaluate ex-
isting policies for improvement of the prosecution
of stranger-to-stranger crimes, and;
6. Develop training programs to increase the investi-
gative effectiveness of enforcement personnel.
B. The duties of the second attorney, Special Services, will
be as follows:
1. Assist the Division Commanders, supervisory and
investigative personnel of the Criminal Investigation
Division, Drug Abuse Division, Youth Division, and
Intelligence Division, in the investigation of criminal
cases and in the preparation of prosecution reports
for the District Attorney's Office;
470
2. Assist in the preparation of search warrants,
warrants of arrest, and other criminal processes
in the investigation of criminal offenses;
3. Closely assist the Division Commanders in cases of
repeat offenders and crimes of exceptional violence,
in filing of charges, setting of appropriate bonds,
denial of bonds when indicated, and coordinating
with the District Attorney's Office to expedite the
indictment and prosecution of these offenders;
4. Coordinate with special law enforcement task force
operations and team policing projects directed to-
ward stranger-to-stranger crimes as directed;
5. Monitor prosecution reports prepared by investigative
personnel, and;
6. Revise the propriety of charges, legal problems
(such as preservation of evidence, search and sei-
zure, etc), proper witnesses, and quality in prep-
aration of reports and completeness of the investi-
gation.
C. The duties of the third attorney, Field Services, Grade 19
will be as follows:
1. Provide legal assistance to the Assistant Chief of
Police of the Patrol Bureau and the five Patrol Divi-
sion Stations;
2. Provide personal consultation and legal advice to
command personnel, supervisory personnel and in-
vestigative personnel assigned to the Patrol Bureau;
3. Prepare search warrants, warrants of arrest and other
criminal processes as required;
4. Monitor arrest reports, offense reports and prosecu-
tion reports prepared by personnel of the Patrol
Bureau, and;
5. Review division policies and procedures to insure
that they meet all legal requirements of the statutes
and current court decisions.
D. 1 Police Attorney, Grade 16-Step 1, will have the following
duties ;
471
1. Assist the coordinating attorney, the attorney assigned
to the Patrol Bureau, and the attorney assigned to
the Criminal Investigation Division, Youth Division
and Drug Abuse Division;
2. Closely monitor prosecution reports in cooperation
with other attorneys to see that prosecution re-
ports are correctly filed, that the investigation
is complete, and that all legal problems have been
solved;
3. Monitor arrest reports, offense reports and prosecu-
tion reports prepared by personnel of the Patrol
Bureau;
4. Monitor courtroom testimony of officers in court for
the purpose of improving case preparation and witness
presentation to the courts;
5. Monitor dispositions of cases prosecuted in county
and district courts;
6. Serve on any special task force projects related to
stranger- to-stranger crime, and;
7. Coordinate with probation and parole agencies for the
revocation of probation and parole for persons com-
mitting stranger-to-stranger crimes.
All four attorneys will be employed as Assistant City
Attorneys with full-time assicnment to the Police Depart-
ment. The attorneys will be under the day-to-day direc-
tion of the Project Director, but will remain under the
overall jurisdiction of the City Attorney.
IV. Court Liaison Personnel
A. Sergeant (1)
1. Responsible for coordinating the duties of investi-
gators assigned to the district court, the county
courts, and the juvenile courts.
2. Directly responsible for supervision of these per-
sonnel and review of the disposition of cases
handled by the District Attorney's Office.
B Investigators, District Courts and Juvenile Courts (10)
1. Assist the District Attorney's Office in securing
the attendance of witnesses in the district court
and in the final preparation for trial of cases in-
volving persons arrested by the Dallas Police De-
partment .
95-158 O— 73— pt. 1 31
472
2. Monitor testimony of departmental personnel appearing
as v\'itnesses for improvement of courtroom presenta-
tion and case preparation;
3. Review prosecution procedures at trial to determine
weaknesses and deficiencies in police operation,
policies, and procedures, and;
4. Perform such court services as requested.
C. Investigator, County Juvenile Departmant (1)
1. Coordinate investigations of the Youth Division with
the Dallas County Probation Department and the Texas
Youth Council;
2. Coordinate with judges and prosecutors in the Juvenile
Court in preparation and presentation of cases from
the Dallas Police Department;
3. Monitor the trial of juvenile cases for improvement
in investigations, case preparation and for witness
preparation and presentation, and;
4. Review policies and practices with the Dallas Police
Department and the Dallas County Probation Office
for improvement in handling of juvenile offenders.
V. Clerical and Stenographic Positions
A. 1 Police Clerk 6
1. This position will provide administrative assistance
to the attorneys on this project;
2. Will assist in case review and the compilation of
statistical and record information on the project, and;
3. Will assist the coordinating attorney in the draft-
ing of training materials and policy directives de-
signed to correct errors and weaknesses in investiga-
tive and reporting procedures and the development
of model training guides and check lists for enforce-
ment personnel.
B. Stenographer 5 positions (2)
1. Two Stenographers, Grade 5, will be assigned to the
Office of the Division Commander and will be accout-
able to him for the proper performance of assigned
duties;
473
2. Should be filled by experienced stenographers cap-
able of taking dictation with complex technical legal
terms and then transcribing them into legal documents;
3. Maintain a legal library including a cross reference
filed by citations;
4. Act as receptionist both in front office and via
telephone;
5. Perform ordinary secretarial duties such as receiv-
ing and sorting mail, making appointments, composing
routine mailing letters, and receiving and handling
inquiries and complaints;
6. Prepare time work records as required, and;
7. Maintain complex filing system as required by General
Order 68-3 (Administrative Filing System), and other
files as required.
474
APPENDIX I
DUTIES OF LEGAL ADVISORS AT DIVISION STATIONS
Attorneys assigned as Legal Advisors to Division Substations will
have the following additional duties:
1. Legal Advisors assigned to Division Stations of the Dallas
Police Department will be employed as Assistant City Attorneys.
These attorneys will be under the day-to-day supervision of
the Director of the Criminal Justice Interface Division but
will remain under the overall direction of the City Attorney.
2. Legal Advisors at Division Stations will report directly to
the Division Commander and will serve in the capacity of ad-
visor on legal questions and procedures.
3. Duties of the Legal Advisors will include, but are not limited
to the following:
a. Advise the Division Commander, supervisory officers, and
police officers on legal matters;
b. Review prosecution reports, offense reports, and arrest
reports to insure that charges are correct and that in-
formation is complete;
c. Assist the Division Commander in reviewing procedures,
practices, and policies involving legal matters;
d. Assist in roll-call training on legal subjects;
e. Review cases which are "no-billed" or dismissed by the
courts which originate from that Division, and;
f. Perform such other duties relative to legal matters as
may be requested by the Division Commander, Director of
the Criminal Justice Interface Division, or the City
Attorney's direction.
4. Legal Advisors will not command, supervise or direct police
personnel but will serve only as a staff advisor of the Divi-
sion Commander.
5. Any irregularities, defects in procedure, or problem areas in-
volving legal matters will be reported directly to the Divi-
' sion Commander.
6. Any irregularity or indication of misconduct by employees will
be immediately reported to the Division Commander. If any such
conduct requires immediate corrective action, it will -be re-
ported immediately to the senior supervisor on-duty and to the
475
Division Commander as soon as appropriate.
7. Legal Advisors will not conduct internal affairs investigations
or inquiries. Such cases will be immediately referred to the
Internal Affairs Division and the Division Commander.
8. Legal Advisors will work tlie hours and days prescribed by the
Division Commander and/or the Director of the Criminal Justice
Interface Division. Legal Advisors will be subject to call
on a twenty-four hour basis for major crimes and police inci-
dents .
9. Legal Advisors will not involve their activities in Admini-
strative matters of the Police Department unless such matter
is directly related to or concerned with legal problems.
10. Legal Advisors will not involve themselves in personnel actions,
evaluations, transfers, re-assignment of police or civilian
personnel .
11. Legal Advisors will maintain records or their daily work activi-
ties as required by the Director of the Criminal Justice In-
terface Division.
12. Clerical and stenographic assistance to Legal Advisors will be
provided by the Division Commander and the Director of the
Criminal Justice Interface Division.
476
APPENDIX II
DUTIES OF LEGAL TECHNICIANS
Personnel selected and trained as Legal Technicians will be
assigned to operating bureaus and divisions.
Legal technicians will confer directly with attorneys assigned
to the Criminal Justice Interface Division on major legal
problems and procedures.
Legal Technicians will directly assist operational personnel
as follows:
1. Assist field, supervisory and jail supervisors in cor-
rectly charging criminal violators;
2. Monitor arrest reports to insure correct charges are
filed and that the basic elements of the alleged crimi-
nal violation are reported;
3. Assist field and supervisory officers in the correct
reporting of offense/incident reports;
4. Monitor field offense/incident for quality in correct-
ness and completeness in preparation;
5. Assist field and supervisory personnel at the scene of
major crime incidents or where "on-the-spot" legal
advice is required;
6. Assist in the preparation of criminal process, i.e.,
search warrants and warrants of arrest;
7. Coordinate with attorneys in the Criminal Justice Inter-
face Division on major crime investigation and on serious
or complex legal problems;
8. Assist field personnel and supervisory officers in re-
investigation or further investigation when needed;
9. Give roll-call training to field personnel;
10. Have a working knowledge of legal research, and;
11. Fellow through on major crime and repeat offenders from
arrest to Grand Jury.
477
CRIMINAL JUSTICP. INTK!II-ACF. IHVISION
MONTHLY ACTIVITY RLPORT
Month:
vl9.
A. Pre-filing case review
B.
Total
1.
2.
3.
Total
1.
2.
3.
Total
1.
2.
3.
Total
1.
2.
3.
Total
1.
2.
3.
cases prepared:
IMPACT offenses
Part I, Index Offenses (less IMPACT cases)
Major misdemeanors (less IMPACT cases)
cases reviev.'ed:
IMPACT offenses
Part I, Index offenses (less IMPACT cases)
Major misdemeanors (less IMPACT cases)
cases submitted to District Attorney for filing:
IMPACT offenses
Part I, Index Offenses (less IMPACT cases)
Major misdemeanors (less IMPACT cases)
returned for additional investigation:
IMPACT offenses
Part I, Index Offenses (less IMPACT cases)
Major misdemeanors (less IMPACT cases)
reduced to misdemeanor or Municipal Court charge;
IMPACT offenses
Part I, Index Offenses (less IMPACT cases)
Major misdemeanors (less IMPACT cases)
Post Grand Jury Action
Total cases submitted to District for filing:
1. IMPACT offenses
2. Part I, Index Offenses (less IMPACT cases)
3. Major misdemeanors (less IMPACT cases)
Total number of indictments by Grand Jury:
1. IMPACT offenses
2. Part I, Index Offenses (less IMPACT cases)
Total number of "no -bills" by Grand Jury:
1. IMPACT offenses
2. Part I, Index Offenses (less IMPACT cases)
Total number of "no-bills" reviewed:
1. IMPACT offenses
2. Part I, Index Offenses (less IMPACT cases)
Totai number of cases re- submitted to Grand Jury:
1 . IMPACT offenses
2. Part I, Index Offenses (less IMPACT cases)
Dismissals
Total number of dismissals:
1. IMPACT offenses
2. Part I, Index Offenses (less IMPACT cases)
Total number .of dismissals reviewed:
] . IMPACT offenses
2. Part I, Index Offenses (less IMPACT cases)
Preparation of policy .stat^mc- r t s
General Orders
Special Orders
Memorandums
Number
Hours
478
Number
Hours
E. Legal Services Performed
Telephone consultations
Personal consultations
Field Service Calls
F. Training
Pre-service Training (Recruit)
In-service (Advanced)
Preparation of Training Material
G. Criminal Justice Liaison Services
City Attorney-
District Attorney
U. S. District Attorney
Courts
Other Criminal Justice Agencies
H. Probation and Parole
Total probation violations reported
Total parole delations reported
I. Remarks:
"Coordinating Attorney
Division Commander
Logged
479
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IKTERFACl- DIVISION
DAILY ACTIVITY REPORT
Date:
19
A. Pre-filing case review
Total
1.
2.
3.
Total
1.
2.
3.
Total
1.
2.
3.
cases reviewed:
IMPACT offenses
Part I, Index offenses (less IMPACT cases)
Major misdemeanors (less IMPACT cases)
returned for additional investigation:
IMPACT offenses
Part I, Index offenses (less IMPACT cases)
Major misdemeanors (less IMPACT cases)
reduced to misdemeanor or Municipal Court charge:
IMPACT offenses
Part I, Index Offenses (less IMPACT cases)
Major misdemeanors (less IMPACT cases)
B . Post Grand Jury Action
Total number of "no-bills" reviewed:
1. IMPACT offenses
2. Part I, Index offenses (less IMPACT cases)
Total number of cases re-submitted to Grand Jury:
1. IMPACT offenses
2. Part I, Index offenses (less IMPACT cases)
C . Dismissals
Total nuiiiTJcr of dismissals reviewed:
1. IMPACT offenses
2. Part I, Index offenses (less IMPACT cases)
D. Preparation of policy statements
General Orders
Special Orders
Memorandums
E ■ Le_fiaj^S^er vices Performed
Telei^hone consultations
Personal consultations
Field Service Calls
Number
Hours
F . Training
Pre-service Training (Recruit)
In-service (Advanced)
Preparation of Training Material
G , Criminal Justice Liaison Services
City Attorney
District Attorney
U, S. District Attorney
Courts
Other Criminal Justice Agencies
480
Probation and Parole
Total probation violations reported
Total parole violations reported
Remarks :
Number
Hours
Reviewed by:
Attorney
Coordinating Attorney
Division Commander
Logged
481
DALLAS
REPEAT OFFENDER
STUDY
DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT
FRANK DYSON
Chief Of Police
482
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to take this means of expressing our appreciation to the members of the
following organizations who were so helpful in providing the information contained in
this report. The spirit of their cooperation testifies to their willingness to work hard in
overcoming the problems of the criminal justice system.
Similarly, any failures to properly evaluate or interpret the findings of this study are
freely borne by the writers and not these fine organizations.
Dallas County Sheriffs Office
Dallas County Probation Department
Dallas County District Attorney's Office
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
Texas Department of Public Safety
Texas Department of Corrections
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Data Services, City of Dallas
Prepared by: Planning and Research Section, Dallas Police Department,
January 1973
•
483
SUMMARY OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
To control the repeat offender, the criniinal justice
system must become a true system.
There should be a prosecution policy within the police
department which is understood by each component of the
criminal justice system, the public and most importanUy,
the criminal.
In order to reduce crime, the criminal courts of this
district should serve justice as rapidly as is practical after
indictment.
The legislature of this state should pass laws that would
increase the difficulty of a repeat offender obtammg
subsequent bonds when he commits further offenses while
on bond and devise additional sanctions for offenses
committed while on bond.
The legislature of this state should develop legislation
preventing the use of concurrent sentences for persons
who are repeat offenders.
484
Chapter I
THE DALLAS REPEAT OFFENDER STUDY
The purpose of this study is to determine the amount
of crime committed in Dallas by repeat offenders.
Further, the study intends to identify Dallas area
criminal justice procedures which can be improved in
order to minimize repetition of criminal offenses.
This is a pragmatic study written by police officers
to document what is happening in the criminal justice
system. It seeks first to learn what is happening, who is
committing the crimes, and to what extent. Further,
our study attempts to learn what is occurring after
arrests to those individuals who are charged with
committing the crimes so that remedial steps can be
taken to make the criminal justice system accomplish
the goals society intends for it to accomplish
Insofar as possible, we will have to build a cir-
cumstantial case against the criminal offenders in
determining responsibility for crime in Dallas. This is
caused by the fact that over 70 per cent of the offenses
committed are successful. In spite of this condition, we
feel the analysis of arrests, clearances, and criminal
histories will develop a conclusive case against the
repeat offender. An argument exists that perhaps the
70 per cent of the offenses not cleared by the police are
all committed by first offenders, but there is no
evidence to support such an argument. However, there
is strong circumstantial evidence supporting the
position that repeat offenders are committing a
majority of this unsolved crime as well as the solved
crime.
We realize there are many social conditions that lead
to crime. Studies into social problems such as poverty,
urbanization, and prejudice we leave in the hands of
more qualified researchers. However, there is no doubt
that the criminal justice system has a strong effect on
the criminal conditions in our society and this study is
written to encourage solutions to any imperfections in
the system.
It is hoped that laymen will find this study of interest
and support the recommendations, however, this study
is directed primarily to the practitioner seeking
system improvement. There is no doubt that real
improvements in the system will pay off in crime
reduction. In the area of control of the repeat offender,
we feel this will lead to a substantial reduction that will
be felt in a matter of months.
There have been an enormous number of writings on
how to improve the criminal justice system. However,
most of these were presenting subjective recom-
mendations on such things as length of sentence, type
of incarceration, or method of rehabilitation. This
study seeks to be more pragmatic by identifying who is
committing crime (i.e., the repeat offender) and what
can be done within the system to control this person.
We take this stance with the tielief that the sureness
and swiftness of justice is more important than the
degree or type of punishment.
In order to achieve the objectives of this study, we
collected data from every conceivable area of in-
vestigation that was pertinent to identifying the of-
fender. When we discovered the impact repeat of-
fenders were having on tnr csime rate we continued
our research to identify the waknesses in the criminal
justice system related tu the control of these offenders.
METHODOLOGY
The major data collection portions of this research
was in four distinct parts. They include (Da review of
the literature, (2) statistics on inmates, (3) interviews
with inmates, and (i) arrest statistics and system time
lags.
A review of the literature on recidivism from the law
enforcement standpoint was conducted to determine
what was known of repeat offenders, what research
had been conducted and its design, and whether
previous studies supported our research. This included
information from published work, interviews with
experts in the field, official documents of criminal
justice agencies, and documented case histories of
Dallas offenders.
An analysis and summation of statistical in-
formation on all the Dallas County offenders now in-
carcerated in the Texas Department of Corrections
was conducted to secure information on what type of
person transversed the system from beginning to end.
This included a review of social characteristics, of-
fense information, and criminal histories of these
offenders.
Personal interviews were conducted with a sample
of Dallas County offenders who were convicted and
sentenced to prison in order to determine their feelings
and experiences with the system. This effort was made
to expand on the information gained in the statistical
analysis mentioned in the previous paragraph.
An analysis of a substantial number of offenders
filed on by the Dallas Police Department was made to
determine their criminal histories and their ex-
perience in the criminal justice system. This also in-
cludes a review of the time delays within the system
and the case fallout that occurs from time of offense to
the time of sentence.
DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this study a repeat offender is any
person who has Ijeen arrested by a police agency; has
had a case filed against him for a felony or major
misdemeanor; and is subsequently rearrested and
filed on by the Dallas Police Department for other
felonies or major misdemeanors.
Consequently, a first offender is a person filed on by
the Dallas Police Department who has not previously
had a felony or major misdemeanor case filed against
him.
485
A case filed indicates an act of presenting in-
formation and evidence to the District Attorney for the
purpose of prosecution of a specific individual for a
criminal act. The specified individual is at that time
usually in detention or free on bail bond.
Bail bond is a cash or real property surety that an
accused will appear to answer charges levied against
him. It can be posted by himself or a third person. The
third f)erson is often a bondsman who will post the bond
for a fee of 10 to 20 per cent of the value of the bond.
The criminal justice system in Texas is comprised of
several entities working together to comprise a
system. Chronologically, it usually begins with a police
agency investigating a criminal offense, gathering
evidence, and arresting the perpetrator. This in-
formation is filed with the District Attorney, who in
turn files the information with the grand jury. The
grand jury consists of twelve citizens who decide if the
evidence is strong enough to bind the accused over for
trial. Insufficient evidence results in a no bill, other-
wise a true bill is returned to the District Attorney to
place the case on a court docket.
The court, which may or may not have a jury,
receives the information and evidence on the case and
decides if the accused is guilty or not guilty. A not
guilty verdict results in a discharge from the system
while a guilty verdict requires a sentence.The court or
jury decides the amount of punishment and the judge
decides whether it will be served on probation or by
incarceration. In Texas a jury may recommend for or
against probation but the judge makes the decision
with no bind to the jury's recommendations.
Probation is served while free in the community
under the supervision of the court through its probation
officers, while incarceration is served in the County
Jail or at the Texas Department of Corrections. If a
specified time is served in the Department of
Corrections, the Parole Board can grant parole. Parole
is the serving of the remainder of a sentence while free
in the community under the supervision of the Parole
Board.
Thus, it can be seen that there is considerable
diversity in the criminal justice system. The fiolice
department is responsible to the city government; the
probation officers -are responsible to the courts; the
sheriff, bond administration, and the county jail are
responsible to the county government; and the
Department of Corrections and the Parole Board are
responsible to the state.
There is little wonder, therefore, that the criminal
justice system has been called a non-system. It did not
grow as a system. Rather, it grew like a series of
compartments created to care for specific needs.
Perhaps this research will open avenues wherein a
workable, effective system can be built.
486
Chapter II
LITERATURE ON THE REPEAT OFFENDER
Conception of this study into the impact of repeat
offenders first brought atx)ut a search of the Hterature.
This was done in order to determine if we could draw
conclusions from research previously conducted on the
subject. We found a preponderance of theory and little
research.
This is not to say that there were no studies found on
repeat offenders. In fact, we found four informative
studies pertinent to the subject which are worth
summarizing in this chapter. The President's Com-
mission on Law Enforcement and the Administration
of Justice addresses the characteristics of offenders in
the second chapter of their study, The Challenge of
Crime in a Free Society.
The FBI publishes the Uniform Crime Report an-
nually and this report contains the most in-depth
statistical analysis of repeat offenders available under
the section entitled "Careers in Crime." This study is
conducted periodically to document the extent to which
criminal recidivism over a period of time contributes
to annual crime counts.
Perhaps the most valid and undisputable study found
was Delinquency in a Birth Cohort written by M.E.
Wolfgang, R.M. Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin. Although
it concerned juvenile delinquency, many of the facts
discovered carry over into adult crime characteristics.
It was a longitudinal study of a birth cohort, meaning it
concerned a group of boys, all born in 1945 (cohort).
The study tracked them from age seven to eighteen
(longitudinal). This cohort study was a study of crime
and delinquency conducted in Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania, tracking the boys from the time they entered
school until they were eighteen years old. After data
gathering, they categorized the youths into non-
delinquents, one-time offenders, non-chronic repeaters
(1 to 4 offenses), and chronic repeaters (5 or more
offenses). They found that these 9,945 boys accounted
for 10,214 official criminal offenses.
Another well documented, pertinent study found was
an analysis conducted by the Washington, DC. Police
Department. It consisted of documentation that a
substantial amount of Washington crime was com-
mitted by persons previously arrested and free on
probation, parole, or personal recognizance bond.
There were 2,755 documented rearrests with over half
of them being free on personal recognizance bonds.
Excerpts from these studies are presented in the
following sections of this chapter, along with additional
pertinent excerpts and documentation of three Dallas
offender's case histories.
CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFENDERS
The most striking fact discovered when an in-depth
study is made of criminal offenders is that a great
many of them continued to commit crimes even after
criminal sanctions had been brought against them.
Arrest, court, and prison records furnish insistent
testimony to the fact that these repeat offenders
constitute the hard-core of the crime problem.
(President, 1968)
The Commission's study has looked into a great
many state and federal prison system's statistical
studies that lead to the conclusion that despite con-
siderable variation among different jurisdictions,
roughly one-third of the offenders released from prison
will be reimprisoned, usually for committing a new
offense within a five year period. Those who commit
monetary crimes such as burglary, auto theft, forgery,
or larceny are much more likely to be recidivists.
However, robbery and narcotic offenders are also
frequently repeaters. Those who are least likely to
commit new crimes after release are persons con-
victed of crimes of violence such as murder, rape, and
aggravated assault. The figures on recidivism are
extremely high even when only those detected and
rearrested are considered. Undoubtedly, many
commit crimes that are never detected. (President,
1968)
A two year follow-up by the Uniform Crime
Reporting System of the arrest records of 6,907 of-
fenders released from the federal system between
January and June of 1963, shows that 48 per cent had
been arrested for new offenses by June of 1965. Com-
plete figures on the per cent convicted are not
available. (President, 1968)
Any study made of adult offenders will show the
importance of juvenile delinquency as a forerunner to
an adult crime career. It will support the conclusion
that the earlier a juvenile is arrested or brought to
court for an offense, the more likely he is to carry on
criminal activity in his adult life. Also, the more
serious the first offense for which a juvenile is
arrested, the more likely he is to continue serious
crimes, especially in the case of major crimes against
property. The more frequently and extensively that a
juvenile is processed by the police, court, and
correctional system, the more likely he is to be
arrested, charged, convicted, and imprisoned in adult
life. (President, 1968)
The President's Commission on Law Enforcement
and The Administration of Justice points out that a
person in the business of crime is in a risky business.
The Commission's studies found that the professional
and habitual criminal's need for ready capital often
opens him to severe exploitation by loan sharks. Most
often this problem arises as a consequent of an arrest.
To meet the cost of his bonds and initial legal fees, he
must engage in more frequent criminal activity, often
more risky than his ordinary line of work. If arrested
while out on bond, he will have additional cost. This
487
pattern may be repeated many times over before the
habitual criminal is brought to trial. (President, 1968)
The Commission's studies also pointed out that the
professional and habitual thief could not exist without
the fence and quasi-legal fence such as pawn shops.
The habitual thief means to sell his stolen goods,
although habitual thiefs often retail their own stolen
wares Many sell them to receivers of stolen goods who
resell them. Sale to a fence may cost the thief 75 per
cent of the value of the goods but it reduces the risk of it
bieing stolen from him or of l)eing arrested with it in his
possession. He also avoids the risk involved in the
retail process. Other instances involve a large quantity
of goods, goods that are perishable, or otherwise likely
to quickly lose their value, and goods for which there is
specialized demand and require a division of labor and
a level of organization beyond the capacity of an in-
dividual thief. (President, 1968)
Professional thieves, because they work regularly at
crime, account for a large share of thefts, particularly
costly thefts that occur. Control of this type of
criminality requires new forms of police intelligence
operations which some police departments are now
beginning to develop Furthermore, this type of work
needs to be supplemented by much more intensive
research on professional criminality as a way of life.
CAREERS IN CRIME
The following section is an enumeration of the most
in-depth study found on recidivism It is a report from
the 1970 Uniform Crime Report chapter on "Careers in
Crime." It is inserted in this study of the Dallas repeat
offender because most federal crimes are also state
and local offenses, thus, the repeat offenders depicted
in the UCR study closely paralleled the repeat offender
in Dallas County from all indications.
From 1963 through 1969, the Uniform Crime
Reporting Program processed data on some 240,000
offenders for statistical use. This study has been used
to document the extent to which criminal recidivism
over a period of time contributes to annual crime
counts and has also been used to show the need for the
centralization of law enforcement information at the
state and national level in view of criminal repeating
and mobility This study was made possible by the
cooperative exchange of criminal fingerprint data
among local, state, and federal law enforcement
agencies. While the basis of selection in this study was
a federal offense, it should be kept in mind that most
federal criminal violations are also violations of local
and state laws. The offender records examined in this
study are. therefore, felt to be comparable to the local
and state experience for the more serious violators.
(FBI, 1971)
The "Careers in Crime" study brought to the
Uniform Crime Reporting Program valuable
statistical experience in the field of criminal histories,
and has demonstrated the potential use of criminal
history information to measure the success or failure
of the entire criminal justice system. The key to the
effectiveness of the system is in knowing what hap-
pened to the people who were handled or treated by the
criminal justice process, specifically, whether they
were deterred from further criminal acts and/ or
rehabilitated.'
Beginning in January 1970, the FBI commenced
converting federal offender records to computer forms
for an operational criminal history file within the
National Crime Information Center (NCIC). The
record formats and data elements for criminal history,
although designed for operational use, were
established with full recognition of the value of
criminal history for statistical and research purposes.
Profile
A summary of 37,844 offenders arrested on federal
charges in 1970 is on the following table. Of these of-
fenders, 25,909 or 68 percent had previously been
arrested on a criminal charge.
Average Four Arrests Per Offender
These 37,844 offenders had an average criminal
career of five years'and five rronths (span of years
from first to last arrest). During this time they were
arrested on criminal charges an average of four times
each for a total of 158,000 charges. These offenders had
a total of 52,936 convictions and 22,240 imprisonments
of six months or more during their crime careers prior
to their arrest in 1970.
The extent to which these offenders had a prior
arrest for any offense is set forth in the following table.
Likewise, per cent convicted for a prior crime is set
forth.
Statistics Conservative
Keep in mind that this presentation is conservative
and understates the amount of crime committed by
these offenders since it is based on police detection,
arrest and submission of a fingerprint card. As in-
dicated in earlier pages of the publication, law en-
forcement agencies do not clear or solve most crimes.
It is also true that the prior conviction and im-
prisonment rates are slightly lower than actual
because police agencies do not always submit such
data after arrest, conviction and release.
A profile of criminal repeating for selected offenders
is shown in the following table. Average age for the
first arrest is high tiecause of the general practice not
to submit criminal fingerprint cards on juveniles.
Criminal career is the average years between the first
and last arrest.
The offender profile is classified by type of crime for
which arrested in 1970.
A study of the 25,909 repeat offenders indicate that 45
per cent were rearrested in the same state during their
criminal careers and 55 per cent were rearrested at
least one time in states other than that of the original
arrest Twelve per cent of the repeat offenders were
arrested in three different states during their criminal
career and 10 per cent were rearrested in more than
three different states.
Four Year Follow-Up
A part of the Careers in Crime Program was the
follow-up on offenders after their release from the
federal criminal justice system. The records of of-
fenders released during 1965 were followed for new
arrests through 1969 Charts and tables are presented
in this section on the rearrest experience by offense;
type of release ; and age, sex, and race of the offender.
95-158 O— 73— pt. 1-
-32
488
9
W C« C« "«•
■* t» to ao
e r> ts o
ll
:!- a s^ si 5i
« >« CO o
0k Ok O O
5;g22
a
e
es
o
g5S2 "
CO t^ o «o
3 n S S
'« X3 00 CO
a> <d «4 <>
t^ M 00 eo
^ ?^ «* '^<
SSS""
t~ "< •• a&
S ^ :? J^
e o o C4
a 0.5 ^ ^
S
a
33"°*
l« O CO o
00 00 e i»
ej o (d od
■O
3
2
ssa " -^
■>0 O lO -«
r« t» r- o»
00 '<• o 00
ci » m' ^
CO "^ "^ CO
o> •- c« «
82^2
r« CO Ob «s
S g S '=^ "^
■Ofl
O to CO M
3$ r^ 1^ Ob
0» »« lO to
s.
6h
88 a» «
?: 2^ !^ ^
»» O •* M
-j Pj «^ «i
00 CO i~ C4
e o CO to
oi CA ^ C>
•41 fl M ,.4
3
CO
3
5
s
o
E
3
09
3
5
V4
o
•*»
a
S
I
a
o
*s
u
V
a
8
I
C <o g
2 a ^
S"
•a o
O H H fa
s
o "
c* -^ o •!* *-
§ S * i: 3
|0 Eh E, fe
489
HI 1 1 I ■ I L 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I .. 1 I I I 1 I I
o
M**AiAi***i*«
ft****iMft*«
^» ^ » » T^ * *^ P^ » ^ ^^
00
ft****MMi*A**«
^r^^^^^^^F^^»«
■ ■ ■■■■■■■-' 1
CO
<
H
ix;
H
H
m
o
en
o
O
On
O
PM
I*rT^77^7^77^rT^7T^T^77^
MiUi^aZ«M«LiMi^&iM^iMMb^f«L^^«l^L
<
X
o
o
en
E-
§°
(/I
u
<
o
>-
oe
2 }S
< <
q3
z is
< «
s
Ul
o:
z
:j
Ik
o
in
^^•^^7^?^f^r».", I.'. '..I .■.■-.•.•. j.^
CO
^^-^^^^••^^
o
<
O u, Z
"■ 111 ^*^ ^t
111 iT O <
8; z z g
o
ui O »-
z z <
490
CO
.■.■.>:■:. :.:.!.M/.!-;:-.-. ■.■.■.■.■.'.'.;.;.;.;.;:.. ■.■.■■■.•.'.■.'.' .■.■.■.■.•.■.'.'.■.'.■.■■'
%r>
o
at
<
Z
u
CO
111
h
<
Q.
Ul
h
z
UJ
o
it
0.
3
0
K
O
lU
O
<
>
m
00
CO
CO
in
CM
<
UJ
>-
>
o
o
m
z
z
o t
I
O Q
^ I-
«/)
LU
Of
Q£
SV. <
*?§ o
OS 3
<o
o
—
CN
o
1
UJ
m
vt
cs
<
CM
I
o
CM
Z
o
I/)
'^***>*iAA*A*AdUiJ-W^^diAAA^^i_fa
^
"^
K
. 1 I I ■ I I 1 I
o
CM
z
15
491
§
•8
O
<
■ ®
I *
«
00
-3
.t
S
2
o
ss
c^ S ^ S ^ i 5 2 g - jj
--i
•«■ 31 00
-g
^ F^ CP O t^ Oi
S -^ t>- ^ ^ ^
.CO > O CO
2
o
^ r> to C4 9 o
lO . ^H .00
t^ m 00 r" f~ S
-I w M
IT g <C 00
ci S e4 ^
to
3
cr
OS fc
■3 »<
«-*
o
hi
3
2
o S
3
c
3
2,
03
3
a; (i V Pi oi Oh 0-'
■O C^ C< CO
« <i J> i
J3 S c^« «
3
X5
3
.C
3
(»
3
c S c
PU CR Pu, £ ft,
<i o
492
Keep in mind that this program for completeness
depends on the criminal fingerprint identification
function. The arrest fingerprint card establishes the
charge and, usually on minor charges, the actual
disposition. Otherwise, to obtain disposition data at
prosecutive or court level the system relies on the
submission of a second form. Further, for correctional
release, another form or fingerprint card must be
submitted. For the follow-up study only those records
can be used that are complete and actually show a
release in a given year (1963, 1965) back to the com-
munity. If the disposition or correctional release in-
formation is not received routinely for a specific
charge, it does not become known on a subsequent
rearrest.
Sixty-Three Percent Rearrest Rate
Of the 16,332 offenders released to the community in
1965, 63 per cent had been rearrested by the end of the
fourth calendar year after release. Of those persons
who were acquitted or had their cases dismissed in
1965, 85 per cent were rearrested for new offenses. Of
those released on probation, 56 per cent repeated,
parole 61 per cent, and mandatory release after serv-
ing prison time 75 per cent. Offenders receiving a sen-
tence of fine and probation in 1965 had the lowest
repeating proportion with 37 per cent rearrest. This
type of sentence is generally found in connection with
violations such as income tax, fraud and embezzle-
ment.
When criminal repeating is viewed by type of crime
for which arrested, convicted, or released in 1965,
rearrests ranged from 16 per cent for the income tax
violators to 80 per cent of the auto thieves. The
predatory crime offenders had high repeat rates with
76 per cent of the burglars, 68 per cent of the assault
offenders, and 57 per cent of the robbers who were
released in 1965 were rearrested within four years.
Likewise, 69 per cent of the narcotic offenders who are
frequently users were rearrested after release. The
fact that 67 per cent of the forgery offenders were
rearrested for new violations within the four-year
follow-up, documents law enforcement experience
with this type offender.
This has been documented many times, as it is here.
Nevertheless, this fact calls for greater rehabilitation
efforts directed at the younger offender, if hardened
criminal careers are to be aborted. Of the offenders
released in 1965, 74 per cent of those under the age of 20,
71 per cent of those 20 to 24 years of age, and 65 per cent
of those offenders 25 to 29 years of age were rearrested
by the end of 1969. When viewed by race, the Negro
rearrest rate, 68 per cent, was higher than the white
offender rate of 60 per cent. All other races, made up
primarily of Indian Americans, had a rearrest rate of
65 per cent between release in 1965 and 1969. Of the
1,290 female offenders released in 1965, 41 per cent had
been rearrested for new offenses by 1969.
Table 3 sets forth the cumulative per-
centage of rearrest by age group and by year after
release. By the end of the second calendar year ( 1967),
after release during 1965, 53 per cent of the offenders
had been rearrested. This pattern supports prior
studies of this kind and is consistent for all age groups.
Of all offenders rearrested during this four-year
follow-up, over one-half were under 30 years of age and
the majority of these rearrests occurred within two
years after release. There is set forth in the same table
the rearrest experience of federal offenders released
compared to a generally different group released in
1963. The latter experience has been previously
published in prior issues of Uniform Crime Reports.
The repeat rate for both groups over the similar
periods of follow-up (four years) is about the same.
This is true not only for each age group as shown here
but also by type of offense and type of release.
COHORT STUDY
Delinquency in a Birth Cohort was published in 1972,
and was written by Marvin E. Wolfgang, R. M. Figlio,
and Thorsten Sellin.
A birth cohort is a population or group of persons
born in a given year. The cohort that this study covers
is all of the boys born in 1945 who lived in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, during the eight years following their
tenth birthday. Females were excluded from this study
because of their low delinquency rate and because
registration with the Federal Selective Service was
used as a terminal data source. (Wolfgang, 1972)
The study used school records, police records, and
selective service lists to track and document the
histories of these boys. Police records were used in this
study, rather than the court disposition records, for the
same reasons they are used in this Repeat Offender
Study. The authors felt that police arrest figures gave a
truer picture of the actual delinquency rate.
(Wolfgang, 1972)
This very in-depth study analyzed the youth m
connection with delinquency, social-economic status,
race, mobility, age at first arrest, offense seriousness,
recidivism, and academic success. The following
paragraphs are a summary of the findings in relation
to delinquency and recidivism in an urban setting and
it is believed that these facts are as germane to Dallas
as they are to Philadelphia.
The cohort consisted of 9,945 boys and the search of
police records indicated they were responsible for
10,214 recorded offenses. These 10,214 offenses were
committed by 35 per cent of the boys or 3,475
delinquents. Thirty per cent of these offenses were
Index offenses as defined by the FBI. (Wolfgang, 1972)
The 35 per cent of the cohort that were delinquent
were further categorized into one-time offenders,
non-chronic repeaters, and chronic repeaters. A
non-chronic repeater is a youth arrested from two to
four times, while a chronic repeater is a youth arrested
five or more times. (Wolfgang, 1972)
Table 4 gives a breakdown of the number of boys in
each category and the number of offenses committed
by that category. Of the 10,214 cohort offenses, 8,601
(84.2 per cent) were committed by the 1,862 recidivists
(53.6 of all the delinquents). Those who committed five
or more offenses (627 or 18 per cent), whom they call
chronic offenders, were responsible for 5,305 of these
delinquent acts or 51.9 per cent. (Wolfgang, 1972)
Table 4 indicates that 18 per cent of the delinquents
493
s
SIS
^ 95 ^
° S? '^ s -.
'^ S '^
§5 » S
^
e
•
I
-o
e
e
a
o
k.
O
?-
2
o
* 2
^ C5 c J2 ^^ 31 ^^
' "■ s ^ s
a> 00 CO cs
t~ -" eJ »
. ^ kC CO *0
h- r^ t^ O ■^
s
s
^
eo c* ^ c^
OO ^^ "^ CO
. t^ .CD
.00 - O . *0 . CO
t^ -^ GO - t^ 00
CM
h- CO
s s -^
CS 00 OS t^
03
o
C*« lO t^ ^^
e? e^ t^ «>
to >a
-^ o t^
S~ -^ .-; ^H ^
o
a
as
D (A
_ <s
3
CO OJ to
XS "O X3
to fl^ to
<U C <B
o o o
"2 Ph 2 Ph
■S 2 «
t- Oh fii
S
«
3
C
a>
(O
3
C
<t>
3
V
to
3
3
C3
3
5 "S
c
o
•c X3 -n
c o. c
brt c ^
U og W
&H a CL,
c
Si
E?
x:
u
3
3
5 £5 35
3 a
"3 Ch
o/ cj a»
Ph
o o
C
IS
to
o
S s
D
s^ ^ -^
>,
X3
iS
o
c
o
,? ^
CO 00 CO 00 "-^
§
:2 ?5§§55S
O
08
■«• •«• « t- o
s
»H
-H »o c^ to o>
-< (N m « ec
^-<
to h- o lO ,»■
t-^ 3; (>» 00 (N
r- CO "O •«• «
:^
■*
■<1< CM -H T»< 00
00 ^' t<5 od ^
« rt T(< ■«< lo
03 <D t^ lO ■<*•
S
CM -^ u^ lO to
s
e<j 00 ■<»' 00 —
oi CM ci t-: — ■
OS
CS Tj* »o »o to
(— t
g
CO eo r~ u3 o
CM 5 S S to
s
to 00 o c> o
eo u? >c ^^ -^
a>
CM Tj- >0 to to
5
■>»• to CM m CM
lo ts -- t-; -J
CM ic to to r^
■^
eo eo CO CO >o
(X
»o as CT> -^ t^
CM -^ »0 to to
""
eo 00 CM to to
§
i
§5 S S« fS
C
O CO <*> OS CD
&
cS
CO ei <N r^ o*
C4 Ul CO CO t^
^H
to
4^
bfl
(fl
S
M r- 40 cc w3
1-H ci M 00 c4
o>
CM -^ »0 »0 CO
ta
S
o
00 O CO Oi CJ
3
^ eo <N r-^ Q
« ^ lO o 55
OS
ft
■ aJ ' 1
'■ 3 S "
s s a a
t;
t ^ 'r ^
SB
'i I" C "S
1 « g »= s
S? u r" 03 ci
III-."
C
^ "^ c -o .^
0^
eo e CO w .a
a* S-. V- «fc- V-
t>> o o o o
tio -O •« -O TJ
n c c c c
■g « a; 9) «
3 >>>>>, >.
Q
C5 « n « 1
On
p=;
o
pq
O
O
494
0)
<
Ul
>
z
(0
UJo ^
Ko i
IL *
hos
ZujS
m
Q.
Ill
<
111
J
u
K
(A
Z
0
(A
K
lU
a.
^
<
X
3
<
CO
CNI
CO
r—
CO
^ to
^
^
Ed
0
>-
z
< t m a
^ u 3 111
o JJ < o c
tt ^ «A tt tt
2 ? S o <
CO Z ^ Ik ^
>-
O
o
z
ca
<
o
<
.J
o
o
<
N o -I
111 ^ <
flO ^ ^
^ i o
lU < ^
495
c «
U C
Q. O
O 00 CO o>
O to
O I—
CO lO
LU
o «
IS
■^ CO -o »o
I— r- O. O
CM >0 CM CO
O >— CO ir>
UJ
u.
o
o>-
[jj CQ
CO I-
w 2 u
J Z w
^ UJ Q
O H
58
UJ
o
z
UJ
U.
U.
O
C
c
o -^ >o o
o " * '
o
<i IT) CO
-^ CO I—
0> CM •^ CO
O >0 -^ «0 CM
u 11 <o CO >— >—
Q. •£
CM
c
ro
•o
(/)
a>
Si
I-
CN
C7>
c
(0
2
o o 10 CO to r^
. i-«> r-. »— CO CM
i: -^ -^ -o CM >o
« «o CO >— •—
JQ
tfi
0)
■D
C
0)
m
(U
o 5J
•5= c c
Ifl ._ Q, _
O 0) D t
9 c J=
c := tt»
o dJ c
Z Q O
0)
"5
0) «/)
Q. ^
a7 <i>
c <"
o a
O c
c e
o ^
z u
496
committed almost 52 per cent of the crime. Therefore,
627, or 6.3 per cent of the cohort committed over
one-half of the crime. This cohort study supports the
hypothesis of the Dallas Repeat Offender Study. It
demonstrates that a small number of high-risk
repeaters committed a majority of the criminal of-
fenses attributed to the cohort.
The authors of this study also conducted analysis on
the seriousness of offenses committed by these boys.
They discovered that 90 per cent of all offenses
resulting in bodily injury to the victim were committed
by boys that were repeat offenders. This leads to the
conclusion that continuation in criminal activity in-
creases the probability of violence. (Wolfgang, 1972)
In the summary of this study, the authors addressed
themselves to the question of when should some type of
intervention other than routine criminal justice ad-
ministration be imposed on a delinquent criminal
career.
The most relevant question, then, is at what point
in a delinquent boy's career an intervention
program should act. One answer would be that
the best time is that point beyond which the
natural loss rate of probability of desistance,
begins to level off. Because 46 per cent of the
delinquents stop after the first offense, a major
and expensive treatment program at this point
would appear to be wasteful. We could even
suggest that intervention be held in abeyance
until the commission of the third offense, of an
additional 35 per cent of the second-time of-
fenders desist from then on. Thus, we reduce the
number of t)oys requiring attention in this cohort
from 3,475 after the first offense, to 1,862 after the
second offense, to 1,212 after the third offense,
rather than concentrating on all 9,945 or some
large subgroup under a blanket community ac-
tion program. Beyond the third offense, the
desistance probabilities level off. (Wolfgang,
1972)
SENTENCING THE REPEATER
An important facet of controlling repeat offenders
lies in the type of punishment given him upon con-
viction. Mr. Sol Rubin discusses increased punishmen'.
for repeat offenders in his book. The Law of Criminal
Correction.
He states that practically every state in the United
States, as well as the federal government, has one or
more laws providing for increased punishment for a
crime committed by a person who had been previously
convicted or previously incarcerated in a correctional
institution. (Rubin, 1963)
Specific recidivism statutes provide for increased
punishment if the crime of which the person is con-
victed is the same as one for which he had been
previously convicted. The American colonies used
specific recidivism statutes, and the form was con
tinued in the states. General recidivism statutes, more
common than the specific type, provide for increased
punishment for a reptition of crime whether or not the
earlier offense was the same as the later one. [Texas
has a general recidivism statute] (Rubin, 1963)
Rubin tells us that both the general and specific
recidivism statutes have been attacked as un-
constitutional on a variety of grounds. None of these
attacks have prevailed. The courU have firmly held
that the additional penalty is not ex post facto, does not
constitute double jeopardy, does not deny the offender
equal protection of the laws, and does not violate due
process requirements. The additional penalty is held to
be incurred not for the first offense once more, but for a
condition represented in the repeated crime. ( 1963)
Under the common law, a court has power to impose
cumulative sentences on conviction of several offenses
charged in separate indictments or in separate counts
of the same indictment, with imprisonment for one
commencing at the termination of imprisonment for
the other. Similarly, a court may impose a sentence to
commence upon the termination of another sentence
imposed by another court, although a statute may
prohibit it. However, wherever the statute does not
control, multiple sentences are construed as running
concurrently, unless the sentencing judge states
otherwise. This is generally so even where the terms
are imposed by different courts. (This is true in
Texas] (Rubin, 1963)
INTERVIEW
On April 12, 1972, members of this section in-
terviewed Dr. John Holbrook, Chief Psychiatrist, and
Mr. Eric J. Holden, Psychological Counselor, of the
Texas Department of Corrections to obtain their
opinions, relative to their professional experience,
regarding repeat offenders. We felt their experience in
dealing with offenders would give us valuable insight
on repeat offenders. For that reason we include a
summary of their opinions and theories in this chapter.
These were given from the professional training and
experience of these men and from scientific studies
known to them.
Dr. Holbrook and Mr. Holden had these observations
relative to this study. There has b>een practically no
meaningful research conducted to identify the specific
impact the repeat offender has on the overall crime
picture. They felt that this definition of a repeat of-
fender (utilizing persons filed on) was a fairly valid
indicator of a person's involvement in crime. They felt
that most stranger-to-stranger crime is committed by
psychopaths.
Relative to the offender and repeat offender in
general. Dr. Holbrook and Mr. Holden had the
following observations and estimations. Forty per cent
of all criminals are psychopaths (sociopaths). Eighty
to ninety per cent of all crime is committed by these
psychopaths. They stated that Cleckley, a noted
authority on psychopaths, gives the following
description of the psychopathic personality in his book,
The Mask of Sanity:
we can conclude that he does not profit from
experience. He will not accept tjlame and
responsibility for his failures or for any of his
antisocial actions . Emotionally, he is shallow
497
and incapable in most human feeling,
especially is he lacking in any feeling of
remorse He is irresponsible, antisocial, and
destructive without any known motivation for
such behavior
These two professionals feel that psychopaths are
genetically created, that is, they are different from the
day they are born According to different studies, forty
to seventy per cent of all psychopaths have different
brain wave patterns.
They state that psychopaths characteristically do
not respond emotionally in the same manner a normal
person does. Their whole central nervous system is
different. They make true emotional physiological
responses to only two things; an ego threat or ego
stimulation. That is to say that normal emotions such
as love, fear and desire for security have no effect on
their social interactions.
Dr. Holbrook states the opinion that psychopaths
have a high average or superior intelligence, giving
him the ability to avoid detection. He feels that money
is only a minor secondary motivation for criminal
activity with psychopaths, and that they commit an-
tisocial acts for ego stimulation. At the present time
there are no known methods of therapy or behavior
modification that are effective in treating the
psychopath. According to these professionals, time is
the only factor that will cause a psychopath to reach
any degree of normalcy. They state that 30 per cent of
them burn out in the third or fourth decade.
Their opinion is that present correctional institutions
only further criminalize inmates. Prisons only give
convicts more vocations, more education, and more
mobility. The convict utilizes these things to continue
his criminal activity.
By attacking the environment, new situations are
being created for the psychopath to operate in. They
feel the offender must be modified, not the en-
vironment In their opinion the offenders being caught
by the police and eventually sent to prison are only
high grade morons, while the psychopath who is
committing eighty to ninety per cent of the crime is
seldom being caught.
They state a study has shown that psychopaths can
be identified in terms of a basic physical response. One
method is the Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) which is
a function of the autonomic nervous system. By
presenting ego relevant stimuli to a person, the
emotional response as recorded by a GSR machine will
identify the psychopath Any technician who can
operate the GSR machine can be easily trained to
present the proper stimuli which are relevant to the
psychopath. A polygraph machine can be used for GSR
recording and police officers would be ideal people to
train to operate the machine and interpret reactions.
Dr. Holbrook feels that not only will this method
identify the psychopath, it can predict the types of
crimes the person is likely to commit, and the
predictability of this person committing a crime with
80 to 90 per cent accuracy. He states that whenever a
psychopath receives a serious ego threat, with almost
100 per cent certainty, this person is going to commit
an antisocial act within 24 hours to rebuild his ego. The
mere act of a police officer questioning a psychopath
on the street can be enough ego threat to cause this
person to commit a criminal act to stimulate his ego.
There were post-identification actions recommended
by Dr. Holbrook The first calls for very early 'den-
tification The goal should be to make identification
before the person becomes involved in antisocial ac-
tivity, preferably at ages five and seven. At this stage
there may be some therapeutic treatments which will
prove effective in preventing antisocial behavior.
Secondly, Dr. Holbrook felt that if the police know
who the psychopaths are, they can have some idea
what crimes the psychopath is going to commit and
with what frequency they are going to commit these
acts. With these factors known, the police can develop
and employ more effective preventive methods and
apprehension measures.
They predict that treatment and t)ehavior change is
ultimately going to he chemical or neurosurgical by
placing an implant in the brain. The technological
capability to do this and control deviant behavior is
here.
These men predict that if action is not taken to
control the psychopath, we can expect one major crime
committed against each family every year by the turn
of the century.
A POLICE DEPARTMENT STUDY
The Washington, D.C. Police Department conducted
a study relating to the repeat offender and the criminal
justice system in that area (1972). This report covers
the calendar year of 1971, with particular emphasis on
the last quarter, October, November, and December.
The report primarily concerns the individual who is on
some form of release, parole, probation, personal
recognizance, or housed in a community correctional
center, and who is rearrested.
The individuals studied in this police department
report were under the supervision of one or more of the
following agencies at the time of their rearrest:
District of Columbia Bail Agency, Superior Court
Probation Office, District of Columbia Department of
Corrections, or the United States District Court
Probation and Parole Office. The Criminal In-
vestigation Division in Washington documented the
rearrest of 2,755 individuals in one of these release
status.
A study by that division of the 2,755 individuals
rearrested while on some type of release status reveals
that felony charges were placed in 1,680 or 60.9 per cent
of the rearrests. Included in these felony charges are
thirty-six individuals who were rearrested for
homicide in 1971 while in release status. They found
that these thirty-six homicide arrests accounted for
12.7 per cent of the 283 homicides committed in the
District of Columbia in 1971 .
The following chart is a breakdown of the 2,755 in-
dividuals rearrested by the agency responsible for the
supervision of the individual at the time of his second
arrest. (Washington, 1972)
D. C. Bail Agency
(personal recognizance) 1,437
Superior Court Probation 609
D C. Department of Corrections 555
U.S. District Court
Probation and Parole 154
TOTAL 2,755
498
Between February 1, 1971, and December 31, 1971,
the Washington Police Department documented the
rearrests of 1,437 individuals who, at the time of their
rearrest, were under the supervision of the DC. Bail
Agency on Personal Recognizances releases. These
1,437 individuals accounted for 52.6 per cent of the total
rearrests documented by them in 1971. (1972)
In October, November, and December, 1971 a total of
482 persons on personal recognizance releases were
rearrested by the Washington Police Department
Felony charges were placed in 295 or 61.2 per cent of
the rearrests. Ninety-eight or 36.6 per cent of the felony
charges were for robbery. Fifty-four of the robbery
cases were for armed robbery. There was an average
of 105 days between the first arrest and the rearrest.
(1972)
These figures document the futility of police
departments arresting and filing on criminals if they
are not brought to trial in a reasonable time and a
meaningful rehabilitation effort made.
NEED FOR COORDINATION
Ex-attorney General Ramsey Clark articulates the
need for efficiency and coordination in the criminal
justice system. If police are not effective in preventing
crime, prosecution, courts and prisons are flooded. If
police faillo solve crimes, prosecutions cannot proceed
and courts cannot do justice — the rest of the system
never has its chance. When a district attorney's office
inadequately presents cases developed by police, the
deterrent effect of the process is lost. Guilty persons
are not convicted and the public is not protected (Clark
1970).
If courts have huge backlogs and are unable to reach
criminal cases for many months, burdens are placed
on police, who may be confronted with a series of
crimes committed by people released on bail pending
trial. Prosecution offices face the difficult task of
keeping up with witnesses, constantly reviewing old
matters and endeavoring to present stale evidence
when trial is reached. Jails will be overcrowded with
defendants who are not released pending trial. Ad-
ditional burdens on manpower and facilities are costly,
but more costly still in the loss of deterrent effect
through delay (Clark, 1970 1.
For the accused, delay often means an increased
capability to commit crimes or a diminished chance
for rehabilitation because of continued exposure to
forces tending him toward crime — the old gang, the
broken home, the narcotics habit — because crimes
may be committed while he is awaiting trial, or
because of associations and experiences in jail before
trial. For the innocent person accused of crime, delay
means prolonged anxiety. If held in jail pending trial,
the accused faces reduced ability to obtain evidence or
witnesses to establish innocence. Failure of the
correctional aspects of the system render the entire
process practically useless (Clark, 1970).
Mr. Clark's observations closely match those of this
study. There is a strong need for coordination between
the agencies of the system. This coordination cannot
lake place without increased information exchange
and data gathering.
DALLAS CASE HISTORIES
The following study was made in order to present the
criminal histories of three repeat offenders in the
Dallas area. From this documentation can be derived
the extent of criminal activity of these men and how
the criminal justice system has been unsuccessful in
its attempt to thwart these offenders. It is obvious that
no statistical conclusions can be made from this data,
but it does indicate that the system is failing in far too
many instances. The following true case histories are
not presented as being typical or representative.
However, they are true case histories of three in-
dividuals and are indicative of the need for efficiency
in the system Complete documentation of these
histories are on file with the Dallas Police Department.
Fictitious names will be used .n this study to allow
distribution outside the criminal justice system. The
first repeat offender case history compiled in this
study was that of Mr. X.
Mr. X first came to the attention of the Dallas Police
Department at age 16 when he admitted to five
Residential Burglaries and two Auto Thefts. He was
turned over to the juvenile authorities. He was
arrested at 17 for AWOL from the Air Force and turned
over to the Air Police.
At 25, he was arrested for Driving While License
Suspended. While he was on bond, the city filed a case
of Sodomy on him The grand jury delivered a no bill in
the case.
In the following ten years Mr. X's criminal activities
included:
• Arrested for Investigation of Burglary
by Dallas Police Department.
released
• Arrested three times in seven months on "Va-
grancy Law", twice in company of prostitutes and
once with working burglar who was out on bond.
• Arrested for Driving While License Suspended —
fined $250 and court costs.
• Arrested for Driving While Intoxicated — fined
$150 and court costs and served three days in jail
• Two cases of Theft Over $50 filed on him and
warrant issued. When arrested, he had possession of
stolen property He was released on a $1,500 bond
covering two cases of Theft Over $50, one case of
Burglary and one case of Receiving and Concealing
Stolen Property. The grand jury returned a no bill
on the Burglary case.
• A few days later arrestee on Tarrant County
Burglary Warrant. Secured a $1,000 bond and was
released.
• The two cases of Theft Over $50 were reduced to
Theft Under $50 The court assessed his penalty at
$500 in fines and one day in jail in each case.
• Arrested for Theft of $12,000 from department
store. Later true billed and released on $1,000 bond.
• Killed two men with his shotgun, contended they
tried to rob him. Grand jury no billed him.
• Arrested for Receiving and Concealing Stolen
Goods and released on bond
499
Arrested for defrauding an innkeeper in Nueces
County
Mr. X is a man who has become very adept at
avoiding arrest and delaying conviction. His only
convictions have been for Driving While License
Suspended, Driving While Intoxicated, and Theft
Under $.sn He has paid fines and served five davs in the
County Jail. He has been no billed on Sodomy, Theft/
Over, Burglary, and Murder charges. True bills
have been returned in Theft Over $50 and Receiving
and Concealing charges Mr X was out on bond on the
Fleceiving and Concealing charge after September,
1970 and after October of 1970, on the Theft/Over
charge. As of November 28, 1972, he was still free on
these bonds.
The second case history is that of Mr. Y. His criminal
career began at age i:i. Between the ages of 13 and 16
he was transferred to the Dallas County Juvenile Home
seven limes Among the activities that prompted this
action was his involvement in three Theft charges, one
Burglary, Auto Theft, Indecent Language Over the
Telephone, Shoplifting, Carrying Prohibited Weapon,
and Simple Assault.
Between the ages of 17 and 26 Mr. Y's criminal
record includes the follow ing :
• Auto Theft — filed by grand jury — two-year
probated.
• Burglary and Violation of Parole — True billed by
grand jury — sentenced to Texas Department of
Corrections for two three-year concurrent terms.
• Three months after his parole from the Texas
Department of Corrections was completed, he was
arrested for Burglary — true billed by grand jury —
sentenced to a five-year term.
• Less than three years later, he was charged with
Theft Under $.'50 and Alias Tickets — received City
jail timeanda fine.
• Arrested for Burglary — true billed — released on
cash bond
• Eight days later, again arrested for another
Burglary and released on bond.
• Theft Over $50 — released on bond.
• Arrested for outstanding Auto Theft and Burglary
Warrants — pled guilty to Theft from Interstate
Shipment — received five year federal penitentiary
sentence.
• Pled guilty to the Burglary and Theft Over $50
charges — received two two-year sentences to run
concurrently with federal time.
• Pled guilty to the Burglary Business House
Nighttime charge and received an additional
two-year sentence to run concurrently with the
federal sentences.
• In January of 1972, Mr Y was transferred to the
P'ederal Correctional Institution at Texarkana.
Texas. Although he was assessed a total of eleven
years, the terms will run concurrently. (The longest
being the five year federal prison term. )
During his adult career, Mr. Y. presently 27 years
old, has been true billed for Auto Theft twice. Burglary
four times, and one time for Theft from Interstate
Shipment and Theft Over $50.
Before he began to serve his current time at the
federal penitentiary, he had spent less than four years
in confinement Spending four years in prison out of his
thirteen years of participation in crime evidently did
not act as a deterrent to his financially rewarding
profession.
Another case is that of Mr. Z. His adult life of crime.
Ix'gan in August of 1967. The following is a brief ac-
count of his activities.
• Forgery case filed — Grand jury no billed him.
• Arrested for Sodomy, posted $1,000 bond and
released— assessed a two-year probated sentence.
• Arrested, while still on probation, for Illegal
Possession of a Narcotic Drug. His probation was
revoked and he was assessed a two-year sentence in
the Texas Department of Corrections.
• Thirteen months later he was released from prison.
• Arrested for Theft Under $5 -fined.
• Arrested for Unpaid Traffic Tickets — fined and
City jail time.
/
• Arrested for Disorderly Conduct
and released.
Posted bond
• Arrested for Burglary — made bond and released.
• Charged with Theft Over $50 - warrant issued.
• Residence Burglary arrest — bond - released.
• Arrested on three Burglaries and one Theft Over
$50 warrant — placed in County jail.
• At this time an additional hold was placed on Mr. Z
for the New Mexico authorities while he remained in
the Dallas County jail.
• Grand Jury returned true bill on all of the offenses.
He received a ten-year sentence on each case, the
sentences to run concurrently.
• He was assessed a ten-year sentence for Burglary.
• Assessed a five-year sentence for Auto Theft.
• Mr. Z was transferred to the Texas Department of
Corrections at Huntsville, assessed a total of fif-
ty-five years, all of which he is serving concurrently,
and a detainer from Otero, New Mexico
The maximum time Mr. Z will spend in prison on this
fifty-five year total will be ten years (i. e., the longest
sentence of the group) He will be eligible for parole in
three years and four months minus any time off for
good behavior In view of these and other case studies,
the swiftness and surety of justice in Dallas is
questioned.
500
Chapter III
PRISON INMATES FROM DALLAS COUNTY
The purpose of this study was to summarize and
report statistical information on all the Dallas County
offenders incarcerated in the Texas Department of
Corrections, in March, 1972.
The statistical information in this study was derived
from information supplied to this Department by the
Data Processing Department of the Texas Department
of Corrections. The total number of Dallas County
prisoners confined in the Texas Department of
Corrections at Huntsville was 2,933 according to data
analysis obtained in March of 1972.
The information reported below gives the social
characteristics, offense information, and prior
criminal histories of Dallas area inmates. Convictions
for robbery and burglary account for a majority of the
inmates with an overall average of five-year sen-
tences. This data source was not designed to give
previous criminal histories and does not give an
aggregate per cent of inmates with previous arrests or
convictions It does indicate that 25 per cent had been
sentenced to state reformatories and that 73 per cent
had convictions resulting in jail sentences. It also in-
dicates that 37 per cent had previously been in the
Texas Department of Corrections.
SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Race
Of these prisoners, it was determined that 57.17 per
cent were black, 38.35 per cent were white, and 4.46 per
cent were of Mexican extraction.
Sex and Age
It was also determined that 95.36 per cent were male
and 4.64 per cent were female. Their average age was
31 years with 50.6 per cent of the prisoners falling
between the ages of 20 and 28 years old.
Marital Status
The marital status of the prisoners indicated that
44.87 per cent were single, 27.20 per cent were married,
16.36 per cent were divorced, and the remainder fell
into other categories.
Citizenship
Ninety-nine and eighty-six hundredths per cent were
citizens of the United States and the remainder were
citizens of other countries.
Military Service
Seventy-five and forty-five hundredths per cent were
shown to have never served time in any branch of
military service. The majority of those who did serve
(14.11%), did so in the Army and the minority (0.03%)
were reservists.
OFFENSE INFORMATION
Murder
There were 278 or 9.48 per cent of the Dallas County
prisoner population serving sentences for murder at
the Texas Department of Corrections. Of these, 265
have committed one (1) murder, 12 have commited
two (2) murders, and one is responsible for five (5)
murders. Their combined total was indicated as 293
murder victims or an average of 1.05 victims per of-
fender.
Rape
One hundred and forty-two or 4.84 per cent of the
Dallas County prisoner population were serving
sentences for rape. Of these, 116 have committed one
(1) rape, 18 have committed two (2) rapes, 7 have
committed three (3) rapes, and one is responsible for
six (6) rapes. Their combined total was indicated as
179 rape victims or 1 .26 victims per offender.
Robbery
Eight hundred and thirty-five or 28.47 per cent of the
Dallas County prisoner population were serving
sentences for robbery. Of these, 517 committed one (1)
robbery, 142 committed two (2) robberies, 73 com-
mitted three (3) robberies, and 103 were responsible
for four (4) or more. One individual was shown to have
committed ten (10) robberies. Their combined total
was indicated as 1 ,539 robbery victims or an average of
1.84 victims per prisoner.
Assault
Seventeen or 0.58 per cent of the Dallas County
prisoner population were serving sentences for
felonious assaults. There were no prisoners serving
sentences for multiple offenses of assault.
Burglary
Eight hundred and sixty or 29.32 per cent of the
Dallas County prisoner population were serving
sentences for burglary. Of these, 630 committed one
burglary, 161 committed two burglaries, 34 committed
three burglaries, and 35 were responsible for four or
more One individual was shown to have committed 39
burglaries. Their combined total was indicated as 1,293
burglary offenses or an average of 1.50 offenses per
prisoner.
Theft Over Fifty Dollars
Six hundred and sixteen or 21.00 per cent of the
Dallas County prisoner population were serving
sentences for theft over fifty dollars. Four hundred and
seventy-nine committed one theft over, 102 committed
two, and 35 were responsible for three or more. Their
combined total was indicated as 805 theft over fifty
offenses or an average of 1.31 offenses per prisoner.
Auto Theft
Ten or 0.34 per cent of the Dallas County prisoner
population were serving sentences for auto theft. There
were no prisoners serving sentences tor multiple of-
fenses of autotheft.
Number of Codefendants
Fifty-one and forty-eight hundredths per cent of the
prisoners stood trial alone, 23.42 per cent had one
codefendant, 13.50 per cent had two, and the remainder
had from three to fifteen codefendants.
501
Detainers
Two and ninety-four hundredths per cent of the
prisoners had one or more detainers by authorities in
the State of Texas. Sixty-seven hundredths per cent
had one or more out-of-state detainers, and there were
0.40 per cent with one or more federal detainers.
The total number of Dallas County prisoners were
serving an average sentence of 19.9 years with 61.2 per
cent of the prisoners serving between two and ten
years.
PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY
Previous Sentences
Fifteen and forty-six hundredths per cent of the
prisoners had received one or more suspended or
probated sentences as juveniles from state courts.
Thirty-two and eighty-seven hundredths per cent had
been confined in county detention homes one or more
times and 25.03 per cent had been confined in state
reformatories. No tabulation is available from the
Texas Department of Corrections to determine the
aggregate per cent of prior juvenile confinements.
As adults, 7.46 per cent had received one or more
suspended sentences from state courts and 45.56 per
cent had received probated sentences. Federal
probations had been received by 2.04 per cent of the
prisoners. Seventy-three and twenty-seven hundredths
per cent had previously been convicted and served one
or more county jail sentences. Sixty-three and twen-
ty-seven hundredths per cent were at that time in the
Texas Department of Corrections for the first time,
21.24 per cent were there for the second time, and 15.43
per cent had served three or more sentences. Fourteen
and thirty-six hundredths per cent had been confined
one or more times in other state or federal prisons and
6.79 per cent had served time in military prisons. No
aggregate tabulations were available to show previous
prison experience ratios.
Parole Violations
Six and sixty-nine hundredths per cent had
previously been returned to the Texas Department of
Corrections for parole violations and 1.36 per cent to
other prisons.
Profile of Dallas County Prisoner
From this information, the characteristics of a
typical Dallas County offender in the Texas De-
partment of Corrections can be drawn. The character
description was derived from modal values of variable
distributions of Dallas County inmates and is by no
means representative of any known individual.
The typical Dallas County offender was:
« Twenty-two and one-half (22 1/2) years old.
• Black
• Male
• Presently single.
• Had not served in any branch of military service.
• Had a 9th grade education.
• Had an I.Q. of 85 to 90.
• Classified his occupation as unskilled.
• Had not served prior sentences in the Texas
Department of Corrections or any other prison.
• At that time serving time for one offense.
• Was convicted of burglary .
• Was serving a sentence of five years .
• Had not received a probated sentence as an adult
or juvenile.
• Had a previous conviction for which he had served
County jail time ( offense not determined ) .
502
Chapter IV
INTERVIEWS WITH DALLAS COUNTY INMATES
Members of the Planning and Research staff in-
terviewed the 99 inmates from Dallas County that were
in the Diagnostic Center on March 4, 1972. Inmates are
assigned three months of their sentence for testing and
evaluation. For that reason, we chose to test all in-
mates at that Center to represent a pseudo-random
sample of recently committed inmates. It was felt our
questionnaire would obtain a greater degree of truth-
fulness if it was administered in conjunction with other
prison interviewing.
The interview was introduced as being voluntary and
strictly for research purposes. It sought to determine
the inmates account of how much crime they had
committed, their previous criminal history, and their
experience with the criminal justice system. As in-
dicated in the information following, the interviews
determined that: nearly all inmates convicted of more
than one offense were serving concurrent sentences; a
majority had juvenile arrest records; and the repeat
offenders admitted to many more offenses than they
were convicted of committing.
The inmates were all arrested and convicted in
Dallas County and arrived at the penitentiary in
January and February of 1972 The following in-
formation was obtained from these interviews The
questionnaire used in these interviews can be found in
Appendix I.
The average length of time the prisoner lived in
Dallas County before he was arrested for his current
offense was 15.7 years.
Sixty-nine and seven tenths per cent had been em-
ployed full-time when they committed the offense for
which they were convicted. Thirteen and one tenth per
cent had part-time employment and 17.2 per cent wert
unemployed.
Inmates classified their employment prior to their
convictions as:
42.4% -Unskilled
:!0.3%- Semi-skilled
23.2% -Skilled
4.0% -Professional
The following indicated they were caught for their
current offense by these listed methods:
48.5% - In The Act or Fleeing
24.2% -Informant
15 2% - Arrested by Detective
13.1% - Caught with the Loot
12.1% - Arrested for Another Offense
4.0% - Surrendered
The average length of time between the inmate's
arrest and his trial was 5.3 months.
Thirty-six and four tenths per cent obtained their
own attorney and 63 6 per cent were represented by a
court appointed attorney. (Only one of the inmates
admitted to paying for his attorney and bond fees with
money obtained through criminal activity. )
Twenty-nine and three tenths per cent secured a
bond for their release while awaiting trial. Seventeen
and two tenths per cent of those who obtained a bond
admitted to committing criminal offenses while
released.
Guilty pleas were entered by 81.8 per cent of the
inmates Ninety-three and eight tenths per cent of
these indicated they did so because they were guilty or
to lessen their punishment.
Seventy of the inmates were convicted of an Index
offense. A breakdown of the offenses were:
26 - Burglary
15 - Robbery
10 - Theft Over $50.00
9 - Aggravated Assault
7 -Auto Theft
4 - Murder
Fifty-seven and six tenths per cent have been con-
victed of one offense, 29.3 per cent convicted of two
offenses, and 13.1 per cent of three or more offenses. Of
those with convictions of more than one offense, 37 are
serving concurrent .sentences and one is not. The other
five inmates did not respond.
Fifty-two and five tenths per cent thought that they
would not be apprehended when they committed their
current offense.
The sentences received ranged from one year to life.
The average length of sentence was 8 years.
Fourteen of the inmates appealed their convictions.
Two of these inmates withdrew their appeals before
they were heard and the remainder received affirmed
convictions.
Only four of those appealing their convictions
secured an appeal bond.
Fifty-four of the inmates stated that they had been
taken into custody as juveniles. Twenty-two of those 54
were confined in reformatories for their offenses.
Fifteen and two tenths per cent have served two or
more previous sentences in other state or federal
penitentiaries.
Sixty-nine and seven tenths per cent responded that
prison acted as a deterrent to crime for them. The
remainder disagreed
Out of the 45 persons responding, only 26.7 per cent
stated that being an ex-inmate limited their chances of
finding employment
Forty-two and four tenths per cent were arrested the
first time for Index offenses.
503
The inmates considered the police attitude toward
them at thetimeof their arrest as:
37.4%- Average
35 4% -Hostile
24 2% - Friendly
6.1% -Suspicious
4.0% -Helpful
The following reasons were given as the cause of
Iheircriminal activity:
37.4% -Old Gang
21 2% - Drinking
21 2% -Drugs
9.1% - No Opinion
6.1% - Employment
5.0% • High Living
The following responses were given to the question -
"Why did you commit the current offense?" :
23.2% - Money
20.2% - Using Drugs
19.2% - Had Been Drinking
14.1% -No Opinion
12 1% - Influenced by Friends
11 1% - Enjoy Excitement
4 0% - Didn't Think They Would be Caught
Sixteen of the inmates estimated their average in-
come from criminal activities as $980.00 per week The
others either refused to answer this question or
claimed to have received no monetary gain from their
criminal activity.
Forty-two and four tenths per cent of the inmates
indicated they used the money obtained by criminal
activities for:
47.6% -High Living
40.5% - Rent
31 .0% - Food
23.8% -Drugs
21.4% -Drinking
16.7%- Women
9.5% - Gambling and Debts
Forty-seven and five-tenths per cent of the inmates
indicated they had used drugs as indicated below:
97.9% - Marijuana
34.0% -Pep Pills
31 .9% - Hard Narcotics
29 8% - Barbiturates
23.4% -LSD
19.2% -Speed
Forty-nine inmates admitted committing a total of
3.204 offenses of burglary. Only 46 or 1.4 per cent of
these offenses were brought to trial This reveals an
average of 65 offenses committed per person.
Twenty-nine admitted committing a total of 353
offenses of auto theft. Only 22 or 6.2 per cent of these
offenses were brought to trial. This reveals an average
of 12 offenses committed per person.
Forty-two inmates admitted committing a total of
467 offenses of theft over $50.00. Only 21 or 4.5 per cent
of these offenses were brought to trial This reveals an
average of 1 1 offenses committed per person
Seventeen inmates admitted committing a total of 50
offenses of armed robbery. Only 16 or 32 per cent of
these offenses were brought to trial. This reveals an
average of 3 offenses committed per person.
Those 74 inmates who were repeat offenders ad-
mitted to committing 4.047 Index offenses, while the 25
that were first offenders claimed to have committed
only 27 Index offenses.
Forty-eight of the repeat offenders admitted to
committing 3.201 burglaries for an average of 65 of-
fen.ses each, while four first offenders admitted to only
four burglaries.
The inmates indicated they had used one or more of
the below listed services in the preparation of suc-
cessful completion of their criminal acts :
13.1% - Fence (Receiver & Concealer)
12.1% -Lawyer
10.1% -"Square" as a Buyer or Informer
8.1% -Drug Supplier
These opinions were expressed as means to prevent
a person from committing a future offense after his
release from prison :
49.5% - Job Placement
41.4% -Counseling
41.4% - Learning a Trade
21.2% -A Place to Live
6.1% -Education
In addition to what they were arrested for, 47 in-
mates admitted to committing one or more of the
following offenses since their last release from prison.
Of these 47 inmates:
61.9% - have committed at least one burglary
19.0% - have committed at least one auto theft
19.0% - have committed at least one lesser offense
14.3% - have committed at least one theft over
$50.00
9.5% - have committed at least one armed
robbery
4.8% - have committed at least one aggravated
assault
The following opinions were expressed as reasons
why persons become repeat offenders:
42.4% - Money
30.3% - Need for Drugs
22.2% - Don't Believe They Will Be Caught
17.2% -Associates
10. 1 % - Not Afraid of Punishment
9.1% - Enjoy Excitement
8.1% - Unable to Lead a Normal Life
Only two inmates of the 99 interviewed expressed a
desire to return to criminal activity when released
from prison.
95-158 0—73 — pt. 1-
-33
504
Chapter V
DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT ARREST CHARACTERISTICS
An important source of understanding concerning
who is committing criminal offenses is an analysis of
who the police are arresting and filing cases against.
Such an analysis is the substance of this chapter.
Because of the large number of offenders filed on in a
year, we sought a smaller yet valid sample from which
to draw our conclusions. The sample source used for
this segment of the Repeat Offender Study was the
names of all adult persons filed on for Index offenses
during the months of January, April, and July of 1971.
This sample yielded 1,076 persons. Records could not
be located on nine (9) persons after a diligent search of
all available records, leaving a valid sample of 1,067.
These months were picked at random and represent 32
per cent of the Index cases filed in 1971. From this
total, it was determined by a search of the Dallas
County Sheriff's Identification Section and the Dallas
County District Attorney's Office that:
General Facts
• Six hundred and thirty-five (635) persons were
repeat offenders.
Four hundred and thirty-two (432) persons were
first offenders.
Repeat Offenders
• Fifty-nine and two tenths per cent of the persons
filed on were repeat offenders.
• Fifty-four and five tenths per cent of the repeat
offenders were black and 45.5 per cent were
white, Mexican and others.
• Ninety-four and six tenths per cent of the repeat
offenders were male and 5.4 per cent were
female.
• The average age of the repeat offender was 27
years for males and 29 for females.
First Offenders
• Forty-eight and seven tenths per cent of the first
offenders were black and 51.3 per cent white,
Mexican and others.
« Eighty-five and four tenths per cent of the first
offenders were male and 14.^ per cent were
female.
• The average age of the first offender was 26 years
for males and 28 years for females.
The following tables indicate grand jury and court
actions by offense and the relationship between first
and repeat offenders. Each offense is dichotomized by
type of offender showing the disposition or status of
the case. The average length of sentence does not vary
substantially between types of offenders and it is in-
teresting to note first offenders averaged longer
505
X
u
Q
ai
o
So
ea
<
Z
<
z
o
»^
o
CO
Q
Q
Z
<:
u
Q
Z
b
O
9 «
Z CU
u
Eb
U.
O
H
o
Q u
Z «'
u ^
o
o» ^ o
c<i ai ed
TT r-l CO
0) CO a; a> v 00 0)
§ S § o § '»•■ §
Z 222 2
o»
oi tt 00
d
4> CO a> 0) a; 1— I 4)
c c c c c
o o o o o
2 222 2
a>
00 CO
TT CO
0) r-< 0) •— < O; CO
o ^' o ?? o
2 2 2
_ _ (W
00
H
<
Iff
Irt (>l -H
00
U
c
.— ( 1-H
CM
0.
o
u
u
tf
c c c c
o o o o
2 2 2 2
CM
00
CO
V
C
O
B
O
Q O
"3.
o
c.S
3 0)
CO 0)
O CO
U CO
a. u
a r^ r73 -^
22 H H
c
<
C 0)
o en
a. 2
.i2Q
Q o)
— w
c
3
O
o
u
O "O
S c
•a
c
I.
I.
U
C
*^
C
CO
•a
C^ 5
"S
3
<
<
H
O
2 <
bo
a
k.
O
e
«
CO
e
o
.2
o.
o
e
>
k.
CO
C
CO
k.
W
k.
o
>»
00
«o ^
«0
k.
Q>
C
o
w
k.
k.
•2.
O
C
Q>
c
CO
C
o
.2
'C
Q,
CIO
o
k.
>
506
a,
<
en
o
mm
CO
mi
<
» Z
U O
H O
Q t
Z 0,
U
o
^ e
B Ml
a.
z fc
(I.
< <«
in
to
in
in
o
1— I
^
§ rr- § « ^- § §
Z Z ZZ
in
n ■^ (O
?s
C C C C
►2 5 ® O
Z Z ZZ
CO
in >-H Tj<
CO
IM
4> 0)
C C
O O
ZZ
o> C^ 0) 0) 0)
■ ^- c c c
Tj. o o o
zzz
in
•^ 00 in
4> 4> <— • C>- 0) 4) a>
C C C C C
o o o o o
ZZ zzz
00
Q
Q
a
Q
Z
u
u.
o
c
o
o
c S
•2-S
O cfl
«- CO
^ s £ £ ^
e
e
o
a
Q O
3 « OQ H
2ZHH
. . ^
o en
•■5 .2
o ^
a. 22
.i2Q
Q oj
CO «
c
3
O
o
o
c
O "O
^ c
CO
o
a,
O 3
CO
<v
•S u o ^
to 5- CO
CO
<
O
CO
c
o
n •5
"^i 2
o
1.
o.
o
c
■a
>
S
u
Q>
Iw
1^
c
a
eo
I.
O
Ps
irs
CO
li.
•o
c
CO
o
c
Q>
C
eo
•a
4.J
o
.o
o
l.
Q.
ac
a
>
en
<
O
<
H
O
H
CO "^
O c
Q> O
00 o
k.
> ^
a ^
•a «>•
9) CO
.- o
2. o
C Q)
^ CO
§1
^ .
•^ c
. ^
CO CO
<^^ 5
~< k.
CO "O
— C
»- 3
•a *^
c 9»
•^~
£ « o
■2. > .2
2 " CI
^ a
CO .c
c ~
o o
2 3
C "a
o.> _
ao^ o
o .S <
■^ CO
Q> ^ 2
> C o
•< O g)
CO
a
3
507
PQ
<
PQ
PQ
O
o
Efa
(»
(»
><
.J
<
z
«i:
z
o
O
Qu
%
Q
Q
Z
<
Q
Z
Cd
b
O
s
O «5
Q s
w
h
o
H
ft. 2
Qd ft.
c^
(M
<M
CO
in
CO
T-H
in 05 o) 'c «D o aj
C ^ cvi g g
O CO 5 5
2 Z Z
o i>
to
in
CO o m
•-I (M
00
■«r CO
O) CO
C '-^
o
Z
0) (U o
c cl <^
o o
Z Z
00
eo
esj
(M
«o
CO
CM
in
CO
in
Q) oi in o 9) C)
§ ^' ^ § § §
Z Z Z Z
CM
cvi
ift
;d ;o t>.
<-> n y-l
tt a> (M o 4) m 4>
c «^ c <= S
o o o o
2 Z Z Z
CO
CT5
o
o
<
.2 ^
^ s
5 o
0)
o
C c
o ^
"^ c
Oh
tn
3
en
o
Oh
73
n
CQ
CQ
<i>
(U
N*^
3
3
o
u
u
Z
H
H
<
H
O
H
a
Q
"co
H
Q
«
c
o
CO
J2
O
U
Oh
CO
•-3
>>
c
3
O
U
o
-o
c
CO
c
en
(-1
CO
o t-:
CO 'H
O a>
Q. .2;
O *"
> a>
•53 -o
fc- O
c
T3
C
0.
3
cr
CJ
01
(A
CO
OI
<
O
H
< £ ^
W
<
O
<
O
<u
CO
K
0)
Ui
eo 5
a
en
00
u
CO
CA
0)
u
>.
a>
CO
■o
en
c
0)
'£
o
1^
0)
u
«4-4
Vl-I
tM
o
>.
en
X5
u>
-o
i::
a>
>.
>
Xi
(U
T3
>
0)
S
u
o
c
<u
(D
Ul
■<->
c
5
C
o
• ^4
Lm
ti
a
o.
<u
0)
nc
oc
CO
CO
t-i
u
(U
a>
>
>
<
<
508
00
u
09
<
H
<
en
Q
U
H
<
O
O
o
u.
22
53
<
z
z
o
o
Q
Q
z
<
u
Q
z
o
&
V
b:
u
u
&5
Q
z
4^
0.
u
b
h.
O
M
H
c
en
o
QC
u
V)
Q >-
u.
o
w §
CU f
u a;
s: a.
,-,
00
f-H
^
CO
?^
o
o
c^ ift i> t>; t^ a; 4)
iri 00 cm' ^' ^ S C
z z
00
CO
S 2 "^
CO T*< ^
lO
;D tT
;d e^ iM
t>;
lO
00
TT
t>
o'
r-(
CO
TT
o rj in
CM in ;o
CO
c
o
<
© 3 S
■■5 ^ «
^ e O
§. « z
I 5
o
.2 =3
^ CU
M 0)
o
a.
OQ pa
3
3
O
a>
a>
c
c
o
o
Z
Z
T ,—1
r^ ^ eo .-H O) 0) 4)
CO ^' .-H o6 S S S
z z z
in
CO
in CO a>
0)
0)
a>
c
c
c
o
o
o
Z
Z
Z
in
to
CO
c
a
5
H
"S
3
O
w
O
Ui
♦
C
o
o
"S
J
Q
O)
o
c
c
-4—
c
%
3
o
<1>
c
CO
c
(—1
0)
•<
o
o
CU
Ci-
CU
<
^
C/2
en
<
O
<
H
O
H
U
CO
CO
in
U
CO
'^ >
> u
2: c
T3 O
o; cQ
CO
a> (-,
x; eg
■" a>
tfl >>
« («
(U .-.
CO "O
M C
'" .2
0) Ui
T3
>
u
C
o
(U
0)
c
C
CA
c
o. a
> >
< <
509
<
o
ai
QQ
a
o
So
<
z
<
z
o
CO
Q
Q
Z
<
U
Q
Z
u
b
O
Z '^
U
b.
U.
o <«
11
as g
b.
O
£ £
i-H Ift rr
s
e
1/3
o
a
I/}
o
o
S
t^ ;o in t^
CO
CO TJ"
<v
ID
<u
c
C
c
o
o
o
Z 2 Z
o
irs
t* CO Ift
^H 'T CM
in
00
(M M
CO
(V
IV
<u
c
c
c
o
o
o
ZZZ
CO
Ift
00
in
^ 05
1— t
00 oi
00 CM 00 00 0) in in
in in ix> oi S o o
^ eo O
»
e<I r-H 00
CM CO CO
Oi
Oi CO <o
esi .-H t>
4J .— t .— I
C
O
Z
CO
05
a
a
o
C c
^ §
en (U
O W
Lm CO
s s = ^
S ® S 2^^
2Z H H
o
c
T3
c
o;
_o
72
1
m
5
Q
a»
t/3
CO
CO
C
U
E-
♦
c
Si
O
u
0.
CO
§
o
c
c
CT ™
O
w
<
<
O
L.
o
I.
C
•a
c
ft)
S -"^^
Q> CO
j: »-
!2 >^
W CO
«■-
CO C
— J^
I-
CO
«>• 13
U
o c
o .2
be 00
o o
510
TABLE 10
OFFENDER AND DISPOSITION ANALYSIS FOR THEFT OVER »50
Disposition
Grand Jury Action:
No Bill
True Bill/Prosecution Complete
True Bill/Case Pending
TOTAL
Trial Disposition:
Case Dismissed
Probation*
Fine and/or County Jail
Prisont
Acquitted
Insane
Deceased:
TOTAL
FIRST OFFENDER
REPEAT OFFENDER
Persons
Per cent
Persons
Per cent
25
20.0
23
26.7
64
51.2
37
43.1
36
28.8
26
30.2
125
100.0
86
100.0
6
4.8
2
2.3
10
8.0
19
22.1
17
13.6
14
16.3
31
24.8
2
2.3
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
64
51.2
37
43.1
TOTAL CASES
125
86
•Average probation received by first offender is 2.8 years, the repeat offender received 2.5 years.
^ Average prison sentence received by first of fender is 4.0 years, the repeat offender received 3.5 years.
TABLE 11
OFFENDER AND DISPOSITION ANALYSIS FOR AUTO THEFT
Disposition
Grand Jury Action:
No Bill
True Bill/Prosecution Complete
True Bill/Case Pending
TOTAL
REPEAT OFFENDER
FIRST OFFENDER
Persons
Per cent
Persons
Per cent
5
7.2
15
23.4
49
70.8
39
61.0
15
21.7
10
15.6
69
100.0
64
100.0
Trial Disposition:
Case Dismissed
Probation*
Fine and/or County Jail
Prison+
Acquitted
Insane
Deceased:
TOTAL
TOTAL CASES
* Average probation received by first offender is 2.8 years, the repeat offender received 2.7 years,
f Average prison sentence received by first offender is 3 years, the repeat offender received 2.6 years.
NOTE: Average first offender prison sentence for all Index crimes is 6.2 years, the repeat offender is 7.7
years.
5
7.2
4
6.2
9
13.0
27
42.2
8
11.6
3
4.7
25
36.2
4
6.2
1
1.4
None
None
None
None
1
6.1
1
1.4
None
None
49
70.8
39
61.0
69
64
511
sentences in the offenses of theft and auto theft.
Overall, the repeater averaged 7.7 years in prison
compared to 6.2 years for first offenders.
Comparisons
The following figures give a relationship of of-
fender's previous history by offense. Further, it shows
the number of offenders filed on for each Index offense
and the per cent of those that are first or subsequent
offenders Burglary and robbery have the largest per
cent of repeaters with fi9 and fi4 per cent respectively.
Persons Charged
With:
Murder
Rape
Robbery
Total % Repeat % First
Persons Offenders Offenders
49 57.1 42.9
40 42.5 57.5
107 64.5 35.5
Aggravated Assault 251 54.2
Burglary 276 69.2
Theft Over $50 211 59.2
Auto Theft ^33 51.9
INDEX CRIME
TOTALS 1067 59.5
45.8
30.8
40.8
48.1
40.5
Previous Criminal Records of Repeat Offenders
Murder
Of the 28 repeat offenders filed on for murder, the
following previous criminal histories were revealed:
• Two persons or 7.1 per cent have previously been
filed on for murder and had one or more no bills
returned by grand juries.
• Five persons or 17.9 per cent have previously been
sentenced to prison for Index crimes. (The records
indicated that there have been no prison sentences
for convictions of lesser crimes. )
• Three persons or 10.7 per cent have previously
received probated sentences for Index crimes.
(The records also indicate that there were no
probationers for lesser crimes. )
« Thirteen persons or 46.4 per cent have been
previously convicted of one or more major
misdemeanor or felony offenses and served County
jail sentences.
• Eighteen persons or 64.3 per cent have previously
been filed on for other violent crimes. (Rape,
Robbery, Aggravated Assault, or more serious
assaults.)
• Seven persons or 25.0 per cent have previously been
filed on for prohibited weapon offenses.
• One person or 3.6 per cent had previously been filed
on for a drug offense.
Rape
Of the seventeen (17) repeat offenders filed on for
rape:
• Two persons or 11.8 per cent have been previously
filed on for rape and had one or more no bills
returned by grand juries.
• Three persons or 17.6 per cent have been previously
filed on for rape and had one or more true bills
returned.
• Seven persons or 41 .2 per cent have been previously
sentenced to prison for Index offenses. Two persons
or 11.8 per cent have been sentenced to prison for
lesser offenses.
• Eight persons or 47.1 per cent have previously
received probated sentences for Index offenses.
One person or 5.9 per cent received a probation for
a lesser offense.
• Seven persons or 41 .2 per cent have been previously
convicted of one or more major misdemeanor or
felony offenses and served County jail sentences.
• Ten persons or 58.8 per cent have been previously
filed on for other violent crimes. (Murder, Rob-
bery, Aggravated Assault or more serious
assaults.)
• Seven persons or 41 .2 per cent have been previously
filed on for other sex crimes. (Sodomy, Fondling,
Indecent Exposure, etc.)
• Seven persons or 41 .2 per cent have been previously
filed on for prohibited weapon offenses.
Robbery
Of the sixty-nine (69) persons filed on for robbery:
• Three persons or 4.4 per cent have been previously
filed on for robbery and had one or more no bills
returned by grand juries.
• Seventeen persons or 24.6 percent have been
previously filed on for robbery and had one or more
true bills returned.
« Twenty-five persons or 36.2 per cent have been
previously sentenced to prison for Index offenses.
Five persons or 7.2 per cent have been sentenced to
prison for lesser offenses.
« Twenty-three persons or 33.3 per cent have
previously received probated sentences for Index
offenses. (The records indicate that there were no
probations received for lesser offenses. )
• Sixteen persons or 23.2 per cent have previously
been convicted of one or more major misdemeanor
or felony offenses and served County jail sentences.
• Twenty-six persons or 37.6 per cent have been
previously filed on for violent crimes. (Murder,
Rape, Aggravated Assault or more serious
assaults.)
• Thirteen persons or 18.8 per cent have been
previously filed on for prohibited weapon offenses.
• Seven persons or 10.1 per cent have been previously
filed on for drug offenses.
Assault
Of the 136 persons filed on for assault:
• Two persons or 1.5 per cent have previously been
filed on for assault and had one or more no bills
returned by grand juries.
• Thirty persons or 22.1 per cent have previously
been filed on for assault and had one or more true
bills returned.
• Thirty-four persons or 25.0 per cent have
previously been sentenced to prison for Index of-
fenses. Eleven or 8.1 per cent have been sentenced
to prisons for lesser offenses.
512
• Thirty-four persons or 25.0 per cent have
previously received probated sentences for Index
offenses. Eleven or 8.1 per cent have received
probations for lesser offenses.
• Forty persons or 29.4 per cent have previously been
convicted of one or more major misdemeanor or
felony offenses and served County jail sentences.
• Forty-seven persons or 34.6 per cent have
previously been filed on for other violent crimes.
{ Murder, Rape, or Robbery. )
a Thirteen persons or 9.6 per cent have previously
been filed on for prohibited weapon offenses.
• Seven persons or 10.1 per cent have previously been
filed on for drug offenses.
Burglary
Of the 184 persons filed on for burglary :
• Ten persons or 5.4 per cent have previously been
filed on for burglary and had one or more no bills
returned by grand juries.
• Eighty-seven persons or 47.3 per cent have
previously been filed on for burglary and had one or
more true bills returned.
• Seventy persons or 40.2 per cent have previously
been sentenced to prison for Index offenses. Fifteen
persons or 8.2 per cent have been sentenced to
prison for lesser offenses.
« Fifty-eight persons or 31. 5 percent have previously
been convicted of one or more major misdemeanor
or felony offenses and served County jail sentences.
• Thirty-seven persons or 20.1 per cent have
previously been filed on for violent crimes.
( Murder, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault.)
• Fifteen persons or 8.2 per cent have previously
been filed on for prohibited weapon offenses.
• Twenty-one persons or 11.4 per cent have
previously been filed on for drug offenses.
Theft Over $50
Of the 125 persons filed on for theft over $50:
• Twelve persons or 9.6 per cent have previously
been filed on for theft over $50 and had one or more
no bills returned by grand juries.
• Forty-five persons or 36.0 per cent have previously
been filed on for theft over $50 and had one or more
true bills returned.
• Thirty-one persons or 24.8 p)er cent have previously
been sentenced to prison for Index offenses. Twelve
persons or 9.6 per cent have been sentenced to
prison for lesser offenses.
• Forty persons or 32.0 per cent have previously
received probated sentences for Index offenses.
• Ten persons or 8.0 per cent have received
probations for lesser offenses.
• Forty persons or 32.0 per cent have previously been
convicted of major misdemeanor or felony offenses
and have served County jail sentences.
• Fifteen persons or 12.0 per cent have previously
been filed on for violent crimes. (Murder, Rape,
Robbery or any assault. )
• Nine persons or 7.2 per cent have previously been
filed on for prohibited weapon offenses.
• Thirteen persons or 10.4 per cent have previously
been filed on for drug offenses.
Auto Theft
Of the 69 persons presently filed on for auto theft:
• One person or 1.4 per cent had been filed on for auto
theft and had a no bill returned by a grand jury.
• Ten persons or 14.5 per cent have been previously
filed on for auto theft and had true bills returned.
• Twenty-five persons or 36.2 per cent have
previously been sentenced to prison for Index of-
fenses. Eleven persons or 15.9 per cent have
received probations for lesser offenses.
• Sixteen persons or 23.2 per cent have previously
been convicted of major misdemeanor or felony
offenses and have served County jail sentences.
• Nine persons or 13.0 per cent have previously been
filed on for violent crimes. (Murder, Rape, Rob-
bery, or Aggravated Assault. )
• Four persons or 5.8 per cent have previously been
f Ued on for prohibited weapon offenses.
• Five persons or 7.2 per cent have previously been
filed on for drug offenses.
The following figures indicate the repeat offenders and
the number of previous Index offenses that have been
filed on them:
Number of
Previous Offenses
Filed
Persons
Percentage
One Offense
298
46.9
Two Offenses
144
22.7
Three Offenses
82
12.9
Four Offenses
50
7.9
Five or More
Offenses
61
9.6
TOTAL
635
100.0
513
Chapter VI
A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
The preceding four chapters have been documen-
tation of the fact that repeat offenders are accountable
for a substantial amount of the crime problem. This
study will now present a subjective analysis of the
criminal justice system to indicate the areas needing
improvement to control repeat offenders.
The Police
Often when a repeat offender is arrested for
burglary, or other monetary offenses, his arrest clears
up dozens of offenses, although, in many instances,
only one or two cases are filed with the County Grand
Jury. 2 Because of the large number of offenses com-
mitted in a city the size of Dallas, detectives are unable
to study each individual offense. Subsequently, a great
many offenses without leads are suspended and are not
reviewed by the individual detective. During 1971,
there were 12,481 Index offenses cleared by arrest, yet
only 6,178 were filed with the District Attorney or
Juvenile Court. This represents a prosecution rate on
only 49 5 per cent of the cleared cases. A research of
multiple-offense clearances by the Criminal In-
vestigation Division in February and May of 1972 show
that repeat offenders account for 90 per cent of the
multiple case clearances investigated by this
Department Since 90 per cent of the multiple
clearances are cleared by repeat offenders, it follows
that a majority of the unfiled cases or approximately
5,670 cases were probably committed by repeat of-
fenders.
The following tables represent a quantitative model
of how Index crimes are processed by the Dallas Police
Department. It has been developed in order to make
visible our response to citizen victimization and to
highlight areas within our part of the criminal justice
system which should be strengthened. They document
the offenses reported from September, 1970 to August,
1971.
Each table represents a separate category of Index
crimes. By reading from left to right across each
month, the reader is able to trace the Department's
efforts once an Index crime has been reported.
For example, on Table 12, consider the offense of
murder. By reading from left to right across the top
line, we see that for September, 1970, there were 21
murders reported, two unfounded, or 9.52 per cent,
which left a total of 19 murders known to police. This
means that only 90.48 per cent of the murders reported
for that month were actually murders. Column 5 in-
dicates that the Police Department cleared 20 murders
by arrest or exceptional arrest, which was 105.26 per
cent of the murders known to police. During the
modeling period, juvenile cases were averaged and for
this category, an average of .83 persons or 4.37 oer cent
of the crimes known to police were filed against juve-
nile offenders. This makes a total of 31.83 per cent
cases filed, or 167.63 per cent of the crimes known to
police. Column 8 shows how many of the total cases
filed were filed "at large. " In this instance there were
five, or 26.32 per cent of the murders known to police.
The next column (No. 9) is divided into two sub-
columns and shows two important conclusions.
The first sub-column indicates the per cent ot cases
filed as compared to the number of crimes cleared.
This column answers the question, "What is the ratio of
cases filed to cases cleared?", and 100 per cent would
be a one-to-one ratio. In this category for September,
the ratio was in excess of one and one-half to one. The
final column reflects the relationship of cases filed to
murders known to the police. Here again, 100 per cent
would reflect one crime filed for every crime known to
police.
In summary, by reading across the model, one can
easily see what proportion of the reported crime falls
out or becomes a by-product of the criminal justice
system as it applies to the Police Department.
Column 9 becomes the most important portion of the
model since it permits comparison of the end product,
i.e., cases filed against criminals as compared to the
number of crimes cleared and crimes known.
The concept of modeling is not a new term ; it is only
new in law enforcement. It simply means to set out in
quantitative form what is believed to be the significant
factors in a situation, and to structure them in a logical
manner.
Since this concept did not prevail during the years
that our information system was being constructed,
the data necessary to construct a model is fragmented
in this Department. Therefore, data must be gathered
from a number of sources and in some instances is
simply not directly available, and must be recon-
structed. An example of this is the number of juvenile
cases filed each month.
Data had to be gathered from the FBI Return B.
Annual Return of Offenses Known to Police, Criminal
Investigation Division's Monthly Report on Cases
Filed with the District Attorney: the Dallas Police De-
partment Summary of Crime of the Month; and the
FBI Return C, Actual Return of Persons Charged, in
order to construct this model. Inasmuch as no monthly
report is made of the number of juvenile cases filed, an
average had to be drawn from the annual report to the
FBI.
Police response is most vigorous in the crimes of
murder, rape, auto theft, and robbery, when viewed in
terms of the number of cases filed to the number of
crimes known to police. For the period of this analysis,
September, 1970, through August, 1971, the Depart-
ment filed the following percentages of cases in those
instances where the case was cleared by arrest:
murder 115.42 per cent, rape 62.54 per cent, auto theft
514
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF
MURDER CASES
Table 12
MONTH
' REPORTED
2
I NEOl'NDED
%OF
NO 1
^CRIMES
KNOWN
NO 1
'rB*or
CBE*
%OF
NO. J
SCASES
FILED
ADl'LT
Sept. 70
21
2
9.52
19
90.48
20
105.26
31
Oct. '70 .
23
2
8.70
21
91.30
21
100.00
18
Nov. '70
16
2
12.50
14
87.50
16
114.29
16
Dec. '70
17
1
5.88
16
94.12
14
87.50
20
Jan. '71
14
2
14.29
12
85.71
11
91.67
12
Feb. '71
28
1
3.57
27
96.43
28
103.70
28
Mar. '71
13
3
23.08
10
76.92
11
110.00
12
April '71
16
0
0
16
100.00
14
87.50
12
May '71
22
1
4.55
21
95.45
21
100.00
18
June '71
20
1
5.00
19
95.00
16
84.21
18
July '71
15
0
0
15
100.00
12
80.00
17
Aug. '71
18
1
5.56
17
94.44
17
100.00
20
TOTALS 223
16
7.17
207 92.83 201 97.10
222
PLANNING AND RESEARCH DIVISION 71-10-9
515
\OF
NO 3
'cases*
FILED
jnENILE
%OF
NO 3
' TOTAL
CASES
FILED
listxl
%f)F
NO 3
"cases
FILED
■ATI.AIK.E-
%0F
NO 3
'per CENT OF CASES
FILED TO:
CRIMES CRIMES
CLEARED KNOWN
163.16
.83
4.37
31.83
167.63
5
26.32
159.15
167.53
85.71
.83
3.95
18.83
89.67
2
9.52
89.67
89.67
114.29
.83
5.93
16.83
120.21
0
0
105.19
120.21
125.00
.83
5.19
20.83
130.19
2
12.50
148.79
130.19
100.00
.83
6.92
12.83
106.92
4
33.33
116.64
106.92
103.70
.83
3.07
28.83
106.78
5
18.52
102.96
106.78
120.00
.83
8.30
12.83
128.30
3
30.00
116.64
128.30
75.00
.83
5.19
12.83
80.19
0
0
91.64
80.19
85.71
.83
3.95
18.83
89.67
1
4.76
89.67
89.67
94.74
.83
4.37
18.83
99.11
5
26.32
117.69
99.11
113.33
.83
5.53
17.83
118.87
5
33.33
148.58
118.87
117.65
.83
4.88
20.83
122.53
3
17.65
122.53
122.53
107.25 10.00 4.83 232.00 112.08 35 16.91 115.42 112.08
* Juvenile Cases Filed is a monthly average
516
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF
RAPE CASES
Table 13
, 2 %OF ^CRIMES %0F «CBA« %OF FILED
MONTH 'REPORTED UNFOUNDED NO I KNOWN NO I CBEA NO 1 ADULT
Sept. '70 67 7 10.45 60 89.55 32 53.33 17
Oct. '70 49 6 12.24 43 87.76 27 62.79 18
Nov. '70 49 7 14.29 42 85.71 23 54.76 9
Dec. '70 48 3 6.25 45 93.75 18 40.00 n
Jan. '71 63 14 22.22 49 77.78 21 42.86 13
Feb. '71 57 17 29.82 40 70.18 44 110.00 n
Mar. '71 43 14 32.56 29 67.44 32 110.34 15
Aprir71 64 16 25.00 48 75.00 24 50.00 18
May '71 62 12 19.35 50 80.65 44 88.00 29
June '71 58 12 20.69 46 79.31 28 60.87 15
July '71 81 17 20.99 64 79.01 36 56.25 18
Aug. '71 66 20 30.30 46 69.70 18 39.13 10
TOTALS 707 145 20.51 562 79.49 347 61.74 184
PLANNING AND RESEARCH DIVISION 71-10-9
517
'per CENT OF CASES
'total
FILED TO;
•cases*
TASES
•cases
%0F
FILED
%0F
FILED
%OF
FILED
%Of
CRIMES
CRIMES
NO.l
JliVENILE
NO. 3
IISAKI
NO. 3
■AT LARGE •
NO 3
CLEARED
KNOWN
8.33
2.75
4.58
19.75
32.92
6
10.00
61.72
32.92
41.86
2.75 6.40 20.75 48.26
4.65 76.85 48.26
21.43
2.75 6.55 11.75 27.98
11.90 51.09 27.98
24.44
2.75 6.11 13.75 30.56
6.67 76.39 30.56
26.53
2.75 5.61 15.75 32.14
4.08 75.00 32.14
27.50
2.75 6.88 13.75 34.38
5.00 31.25 34.38
51.72
2.75 9.48 17.75 61.21
10.34 55.47 61.21
37.50
2.75 5.73 20.75 43.23
8 16.67 86.46 43.23
58.00
2.75 5.50 31.75 63.50
14.00 72.16 63.50
32.61
2.75 5.98 17.75 38.59
6.52 63.39 38.59
28.13
2.75 4.30 20.75 32.42
10.94 57.64 32.42
21.74
2.75 5.98 12.75 27.72
13.04 70.83 27.72
32.74 33.00 5,87 217.00 38.61
54
9.61 62.54 38.61
♦ Juvenile Cases Filed is a monthly average
518
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF
ROBBERY CASES
Table 14
Sept. '70
Oct. '70
Nov. '70
Dec. '70
Jan. '71
Feb. '71
Mar. '71
April '71
May '71
June '71
July '71
Aug. '71
PORTED
UNFOUNDED
%OF
NO 1
^CRIMES
KNOWN
%OF
NO. 1
'CBA or
CBEA
%OF
NO. J
SCASES
FILED
ADULT
309
14
4.53
295
95.47
71
24.07
50
293
16
5.46
277
94.54
68
24.55
45
344
16
4.65
328
95.35
91
27.74
50
352
11
3.13
341
96.88
105
30.79
62
323
10
3.10
313
96.90
59
18.85
43
231
16
6.93
215
93.07
86
40.00
49
214
13
6.07
201
93.93
64
31.84
28
187
19
10.16
168
89.84
53
31.55
38
207
15
7.25
192
92.75
56
29.17
36
211
12
5.69
199
94.31
79
39.70
30
247
'18
7.29
229
92.71
69
30.13
43
272
18
6.62
254
3012
93.38
84
885
33.07
46
3190
178
5.58
94.42
29.38
520
PLANNING AND RESEARCH DIVISION 71-10-9
519
%0F
NO. 1
•tASES"
FILED
JUVENILE
%OF
NO 1
'TOTAL
CASES
FILED
•cases
%of filed \of
no 3 "at large- no. j
•per CENT OFCA8ES
FILED TO;
CRIMES
CLEARED
CRIMES
KNOWN
16.95 10.67 3.62 60.67 20.57
1.02 85.45 20.57
16.25
10.67 3.85 55.67 20.10
.72 81.87 20.10
15.24
10.67 3.25 60.67 18.50
1.22 66.67 18.50
18.18 10.67 3.13 72.67 21.31
8 2.35 69.21 21.31
13.74
10.67 3,41 53.67 17.15
2.88 90.97 17.15
22.79
10.67 4.96 59.67 27.75
6 2.79 69.38 27.75
13.93 10.67 5.31 38.67 19.24
2.49 60.42 19.24
22.62
10.67 6.35 48.67 28.97
4.17 19.83 28.97
18.75
10.67 5.56 46.67 24.31
10 5.21 83.34 24.31
15.08
10.67 5.36 40.67 20.44
9 4.52 51.48 20.44
18.78
10.67 4.66 53.67 23.44
12 5.24 77.78 23.44
18.11
10.67 4.20 56.67 22.31
13 5.12 67.46 22.31
17.26 128.00 4.25 648.00 21.51
88 2.92 73.22 21.51
♦ Juvenile Cases Filed is a monthly average
95-158 O — 73 — pt. 1 34
520
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF
BURGLARY CASES
Table 15
^CRIMES
Vases
%OF
%OF
*CBAor
%OF
FILED
NO 1
KNOWN
NO 1
(BEA
NO 3
ADULT
Sept. '70 1782 34 1.91 1748 98.09 291 16.65
93
Oct. '70
1643
29 1.77 1614 98.23 360 22.30 108
Nov. '70
1583
26 1.64 1557 98.36 232 14.90
61
Dec. '70
1677
35 2.09 1642 97.91 311 18.94
83
Jan. '71
1707
48 2.81 1659 97.19 298 17.96
79
Feb. '71
1370
42 3.07 1328 96.93 281 21.16
85
Mar. '71
1486
35 2.36 1451 97.64 391 26.95 117
Aprir71 1420 43 3.03 1377 96.97 370 26.87 103
May '71 1307 40 3.06 1267 96.94 328 25.89
97
June '71 1493 36 2.41 1457 97.59 351 24.09
83
July '71 1614 39 2.42 1575 97.58 345 21.90
81
Aug. '71 1712 40 2.34 1672 97.66 412 24.64 123
TOTALS 18794 447 2.38 18347 97.62 3970 21.64 U13
PLANNING AND RESEARCH DIVISION 71-10-9
521
'pERCENTOFCA»e8
^ TOTAL
FILED TO:
'(ASKS-
CASES
»<ASES
\0K
KILKD
%OF
FILED
%OE
FILED
%OF
rRIMES CRIMES
NO 3
JITKNILE
NU 3
IIS*I«I
NO 3
■ATLARCiE ■
NO t
CLKAREO KNOWN
5.32
73.67 4.21 166.67 9.53
16
.92
57.27 9.53
6.69
73.67 4.56 181.67 11.26
18
1.12
50.46 11.26
3.92
73.67 4.73 134.67 8.65
.45 58.05 8.65
5.05 73.67 4.49 156.67 9.54
10
.61 50.38 9.54
4.76 73.67 4.44 152.67 9.20
14
.84 51.23 9.20
6.40
73.67 5.55 158.67 11.95
.38 56.47 11.95
8.06
73.67 5.08 190.67 13.14 25 1.72 48.76 13.14
7.48 73.67 5.34 176.67 12.83
18
1.31 47.75 12.83
7.66
73.67 5.81 170.67 13.47
24
1.89 52.03 13.47
5.70
73.67 5.06 156.67 10.75
20
1.37 44.64 10.75
5.14
73.67 4.68 154.67 9.82
23
1.46 44.83 9.82
7.36
73.67 4.41 196.67 11.76
19
1.14 47.74 11.76
6.07 884.00 4.82 1997.00 10.88 199 1.08 50.30 10.88
* Juvenile Cases Filed is a monthly average
522
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF
ASSAULT CASES
Table 16
^JJ.
MONTH ' REPORTED ^I'NFOUNOED
Sept. '70 661
Oct. 70
Nov. '70
Dec. '70
Jan. '71
Feb. '71
Mar. '71
May '71
June '71
July '71
Aug. '71
611
521
499
515
482
496
April '71 502
676
655
685
634
21
21
23
25
21
38
47
48
46
40
47
45
%OF
NO I
'crimes
KNOWN
%0F
NO I
'CBA or
PBEA
\OF
NO 3
Vases
FILED
ADVLT
3.18
640
96.82
406
63.44
88
3.44
590
96.56
394
66.78
70
4.41
498
95.59
351
70.48
70
5.01
474
94.99
328
69.20
49
4.08
494
95.92
307
62.15
60
7.88
444
92.12
263
59.23
64
9.48
449
90.52
326
72.61
47
9.56
454
90.44
351
77.31
86
6.80
630
93.20
410
65.08
115
6.11
615
93.89
416
67.64
87
6.86
638
93.14
494
77.43
114
7.10
589
92.90
414
70.29
80
TOTALS 6937 422 6.08 6515 93.92 4460 68.46 930
PLANNING AND RESEARCH DIVISION 71-10-9
523
'pep CENT OF ( AS ES
'total
FILED TO
•cases-
CASES
•cases
\0F
filed
%OF
FILED
%0F
FILED
%<>F
CRIMES
CRIMES
NO 3
JITENILE
NO. 3
lfS4lll
NO]
•AT LARGE-
NO J
CLEARED
KNOWN
L3.75
10.58
1.65
98.58
15.40
36
5.63
24.28
15.40
11.86
10.58 1.79 80.58 13.66
20
3.39 20.45 13.66
14.06 10.58 2.12 80.58 16.18
16
3.21 22.96 16.18
10.34 10.58 2.23 59.58 12.57
16
3.38 18.16 12.57
12.15 10.58 2.14 70.58 14.29
18
3.64 22.99 14.29
14.41 10.58 2.38 74.58 16.80
12
2.70 28.36 16.80
10.47 10.58 2.36 57.58 12.82
23
5.12 17.66 12.82
18.94 10.58 2.33 96.58 21.27
27
5.95 27.52 21.27
18.25 10.58 1.68 125.58 19.93
36
5.71 30.63 19.93
14.15 10.58 1.72 97.58 15.87
36
5.85 23.46 15.87
17.87 10.58 1.66 124.58 19.53
40
6.27 25.22 19.53
13.58 10.58 1.80 90.58 15.38
22
3.74 21.88 15.38
14.27 127.00 1.95 1057.00 16.22 302 4.64 23.70 16.22
* Juvenile Cases Filed is a monthly average
524
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ^
AUTO THEFT CASES '~
Table 17
MONTH 'REPORTED ^,NFOl,NDED m' '^Zf H^", '.ZT ^^ ^H
Sept. '70 828 155 18.72 673 81.28 79 11.74 84
Oct. '70 812 198 24.38 614 75.62 160 26.06 42
Nov. '70 769 196 25.49 573 74.51 85 14.83 37
Dec. '70 707 215 30.41 492 69.59 137 27.85 52
Jan. '71 843 205 24.32 638 75.68 153 23.98 43
Feb. '71 690 137 19.86 553 80.14 136 24.59 21
Mar. '71 740 173 23.38 567 76.62 171 30.16 57
Aprir71 591 139 23.52 452 76.48 73 16.15 33
May '71 666 123 18.47 543 81.53 120 22.10 50
June '71 649 136 20.96 513 79.04 129 25.15 34
July '71 765 117 15.29 648 84.71 141 21.76 47
Aug. '71 806 96 11.91 710 88.09 137 19.30 46
TOTALS 8866 1890 21.32 6976 78.68 1521 21.80 546
PLANNING AND RESEARCH DIVISION 71-10-9
525
\OF
NO. 3
•cases*
FILED
Jl-VENILE
%0F
NO 3
'total
CASES
FILED
|I5«IC|
%OF
NO. 3
■cases
FILED
•AT LARGE"
%OF
NO. 3
'per CENT OF cases
FILED TO:
CRIMES CRIMF^
CLEARED KNOWN
2.48
40.25
5.98
124.25
18.46
15
2.23
157.28
18.46
6.84
40.25 6.56 82.25 13.40
.65 51.42 13.40
6.46 40.25 7.04 77.25 13.48
1.22 90.88 13.48
10.57 40.25 8.18 92.25 18.75
1.42 67.34 18.75
6.74 40.25 6.31 83.25 13.05
.63 54.41 13.05
3.80 40.25 7.28 61.25 11.08
.36 45.04 11.08
10.05 40.25 7.10 97.25 17.15
1.06 56.87 17.15
7.30
40.25
8.90
73.25
16.21
5
1.11
100.34
16.21
9.21
40.25
7.41
90.25
16.62
7
1.29
75.21
16.62
6.63
40.25
7.85
74.25
14.47
7
1.36
57.56
14.47
7.25
40.25
6.21
87.25
13.46
6
.93
61.88
13.46
6.48
40.25
5.76
86.25
12.15
12
1.69
62.96
12.15
7.83 483.00 6.92 1029.00 14.75 82 1.18 67.65 14.75
Juvenile Cases Filed is a monthly average
526
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF
LARCENY — THEFT CASES
Table 18
, %OP ^CRIMES
MONTH 'reported UNFOUNDED NO I KNOWN
Sept. '70 3264
Oct. '70
Dec. '70
Jan. '71
Feh. '71
3507
Nov. '70 2946
3328
3091
2646
Mar. '71 3050
74 2.27 3190
76 2.17 3431
52 1.77 2894
56 1,68 3272
69 2.23 3022
61 2.31 2585
90 2.95 2960
Aprir71 3121 83 2.66 3038
May '71 3000 91 3.03 2909
June '71 3317 80 2.41 3237
July '71 3406 108 3.17 3298
Aug. '71 3735 92 2.46 3643
%OF
NO 1
*CBAor
CBEA
%OF
NO. 3
'cases
FILED
ADULT
97.73
635
19.91
170
97.83
676
19.70
200
98.23
610
21.08
152
98.32
743
22.71
157
97.77
605
20.02
151
97.69
423
16.36
114
97.05
623
21.05
179
97.34
747
24.59
182
96.97
703
24.17
158
97.59
631
19.49
150
96.83
747
22.65
195
97.54
705
19.35
189
TOTALS 38411 932 2.43 37479 97.57 7848 20.94 1997
PLANNING AND RESEARCH DIVISION 71-10-9
527
%OF
NO. 3
•cases*
FILED
JUVENILE
%0F
NO. 3
'total
cases
FILED
IKkftI
%0F
NO 3
•cases
FILED
■AT LARGE"
%0F
NO I
'per CENT OF cases
FILED TO:
CRIMES CRIMES
cleared KNOWN
5.33
100.50
3.15
270.50
8.48
27
.85
42.60
8.48
5.83
100.50
2.93
300.50
8.76
19
.55
44.45
8.76
5.25 100.50 3.47 252.50 8.72
29
1.00 41.39 8.72
4.80 100.50 3.07 257.50 7.87
28
.86 34.66 7.87
5.00 100.50 3.33 251.50 8.32
26
.86 41.57 8.32
4.41 100.50 3.89 214.50 8.30
25
.97 50.71 8.30
6.05 100.50 3.40 279.50 9.44
31
1.05 44.86 9.44
5.99 100.50 3.31 282.50 9.30 30
.99 37.82 9.30
5.43 100.50 3.45 258.50 8.89
41
1.41 36.77 8.89
4.63 100.50 3.10 250.50 7.74 25
.77 39.70 7.74
5.91 100.50 3.05 295.50 8.96
31
.94 39.56 8.96
5.19 100.50 2.76 289.50 7.95 27
.74 41.06 7.95
5.33 1206.00 3.22 3203.00 8.55 339
.90 40.81 8.55
* Juvenile Cases Filed is a monthly average
528
67.65 per cent, and robbery 73.22 per cent. Murder
exceeded 100 per cent because of cases filed that had
been cleared earlier
In the aggravated assault category, there was a low
correlation between cases cleared and cases filed For
the survey period, only 23.70 per cent of the cases-
cleared resulted in the filing of a case with court
Larceny/theft and burglary also received a less vigor-
ous prosecution rate. Larceny /theft was 40.81 per cent
and burglary was 50.30 per cent.
Psychologists tell us that it is not the degree of
punishment which serves as a deterrent to crime, but
the certainty of it. By examining this model we are
able to determine the certainty of having a case filed
with the District Attorney's Office by the Dallas Police
Department when a crime is reported.
Criminal Courts
Two related areas of responsibility of the criminal
courts that lead to repeat offenses of habitual
criminals are the bail bond procedure and the ex-
cessive time required to try a case.
The right to bail is a constitutional guarantee and is
designed solely as a method of ensuring the defen-
dant's appearance at trial. In a majority of cases, a
released defendant takes advantage of the bail system
to live with and support his family, maintain ties with
his community, and busy himself with his own defense
by searching for witnesses and evidence, and by
keeping in close touch with his lawyer. The repeat
offender and habitual criminal takes advantage of this
freedom to earn money by criminal activity to pay for
the bond fees and lawyer fees. A released habitual
criminal realizes that any further offenses he commits
will not, in most cases, lead to further punishments. He
also knows that these additional offenses will be ex-
peditiously disposed of if he is filed on for further of-
fenses. Two possibilities are available; either the
prosecutor will only prosecute the best case allowing
the others to go unprosecuted, or he will prosecute all
of the cases and routinely these additional sentences
will run concurrently.
A multitude of examples of such misuse of the bond
system can be enumerated. Suspect, Dallas Police
Department « 65.536, a 24 year old burglar, is one such
example He is presently out on 11 twnds, most of them
for burglary and he was still at large as of the first of
June, 1972. The total amount of bail for these 11
warrants is in excess of $51,000. This indicates that the
amount of bond is not of great importance to a suc-
cessful burglar.
Some further examples of habitual criminals using
the bond system to further their careers are: ^
• T.J.M. has seven bonds against him for habitual
burglar outstanding for a total of $30,000
• B.G.R, has a total of 17 bonds against him for
forgery and theft totaling over $23,000.
• M.S. has a total of nine bonds totaling $7,100 for
such offenses as theft over $50, auto theft, drugs,
shoplifting, and passing worthless checks.
• J.L.S. has a total of 17 bonds totaling $108,000 for
offenses ranging from carrying a prohibited
weapon to theft over $50, with a majority of the
cases being for passing worthless checks. These
bonds go back as much as 30 months.
The people in these examples and many more an
still free and walking the streets of Dallas with no
indication that the criminal justice system has had any
deterrence on their criminal activity. More detailed
examples of criminal activity while on bond can be
found in the three case histories outlined in Chapter II .
While conducting this study, it was found that the
Sheriff of Dallas County and his bond desk are eager to
cooperate with the Dallas Police Department when
bond abuse cases that are contributing to our crime
problem are brought to their attention. Sheriff Clar-
ence Jones has volunteered to set cash bonds on Dallas
Police Department suspects with a current history of
multiple offenses if we request it. One week several
cash bonds were set at our request. The mechanics to
request such bonds must be established in this Depart-
ment. The setting of a cash bond rather than a property
bond severely limits a suspect's capability of remain-
ing free on bond. The Sheriff's cooperation must, of
course, be tempered with the fact that he has ex-
tremely limited incarceration space.
The following is an analysis of a project recently
conducted by the Patrol Bureau and by Sergeant C. J.
Macsas of the Operations Analysis Unit of the Planning
and Research Section. In the first three weeks, the
Sheriff's Office has required cash bond on four
suspects and subsequently they remained in jail. While
the remainder of the city is experiencing the normal
seasonal increase in residence burglaries, this ex-
perimental area in South Dallas has shown a 50 per
cent reduction Similarly, the entire Southeast District
experienced an 18 per cent reduction in residence
burglaries that we believe can be attributed to this
repeat offender control effort.
PATROL CRIME CONTROL PROJECT
— Twenty-Five Day Evaluation —
The Patrol Bureau in the Southeast District has
initiated a "Crime Control Team" consisting of five
patrolmen and one sergeant. This team utilizes a
covert operation in that all of them work out of
uniform. Their main target area has been beats 312 and
313 selected because of their high residential burglary
density this year. The team differs from most in that it
consists of patrol officers very familiar with the work
location. This familiarity coupled with such measures
as requiring higher bond (even cash bonds) for those
arrested in the area for burglary and the raiding of
fences in the Southeast District has brought a sur-
prising change to the residential burglary trend in the
Southeast District. Following is a short evaluation of
the results thus far for the "Patrol Crime Control
Project."
Last year residential burglary increased citywide
from May to June. During the twenty-five day period of
the project's operation in June (June 5th-30th), the
Southeast District has had a decrease of seventy
residence burglaries from the corresponding period in
May. This is by far the largest decrease recorded in the
city per district for this time period. It is more than
double the next largest decrease (30 burglaries in the
Northwest District). The rest of the city (excluding
Southeast District), in fact, recorded an increase of
529
thirty-two residence burglaries during this time
period.
The specific target areas within the Southeast
District, beats 312 and 313, had residence burglary
decreases of nine and five offenses respectively in this
time span This represents decreases of 34.6 per cent
and 31.2 per cent respectively.
The second watch, which was the primary work
time, recorded a decrease of 64 offenses in June from
the corresponding period in May.
It must be pointed out here that bail is a con-
stitutional right and cannot be used solely to detain a
person in jail before conviction. Under the present
system where months pass before a case can come to
court, it would be unconstitutional to incarcerate a
suspect this long without recourse.
Consequently, another area of solution would be to
provide an accelerated trial process for high-risk and
habitual defendants. In Philadelphia, for example, a
special calendar for defendants charged with habitual
offenses or crimes of violence has recently been set up.
Such defendants are to come to trial no more than
thirty days after indictment. It is still too early to know
whether and how much this lessens the likelihood that
released defendants will commit further criminal
acts; but other studies have shown that the risks are
closely related to the length of time that elapses before
trial, according to the President's Commission On Law
Enforcement and Administration of Justice. This
possible solution is very timely if indeed Dallas County
requests funds for two additional criminal courts from
the upcoming Impact program One or both of these
ne'v courts could be used to calendar only habitual and
multiple offenders.
Nine Month Delay In Trial
Crowded court calendars are the indirect cause of
bail abuses by repeat offenders. In 1971, a total of 3,294
Index offenses filed by the Dallas Police Department
were disposed of by grand jury no bills or by criminal
court action; 988 offenses were disposed of by grand
jury no bills with 268 Index offenses being reduced to
lesser charges and handled by the three Dallas County
Criminal Courts The seven Dallas County Criminal
District and Judicial Courts disposed of 2,038 Index
offenses. Table 19 gives information on the average
elapsed time for court disposition. It takes ap-
proximately nine months to dispose of an Index of-
fense. This means that a man arrested for an Index
offense and filed on may be free on bail to commit
further offenses without threat of further punishment
for several months The average is not affecting law
enforcement as much as the exception.''
Interviews with Dallas inmates indicate that it takes
an average of 5.9 months to even plead guilty. Only 10
per cent of those pleading guilty were able to get
dispositions in less than 60 days. There is no basis for
claiming Dallas County justice is either swift or sure.
Delay Results In Multiple Cases
This delay in disposition of criminal cases leads to
repeat offenders having multiple cases pending
against them by the time they are finally brought to
trial For the purpose of this study, the term person
with multiple cases pending will refer to any person
who has two or more cases pending, at least one of
which is classified as an Index offense. As of February
1st of this year ( 1972), the Dallas Police Department's
Identification Section records indicated that a total of
995 persons filed on by this Department had two or
more cases awaiting trial in the Dallas County Courts.
These include 2,446 cases filed from March 3, 1972,
through January 31, 1972.5
Of these 995 persons, a total of 1.728 Index offenses
and 718 other felony or major misdemeanor offenses
were filed against them. Sixty per cent of these people
are awaiting trial for Index offenses. Over 28 per cent
of these people have three or more offenses awaiting
trial. Aggravated assault, theft, and burglary, in that
order, are the offenses for which most individuals are
awaiting trial while aggravated assault, theft, and
robbery account for the largest number of cases
pending. A sample of our records indicate that well
over half of these multiple offenses derive from
separate offenses and separate arrests.
Concurrent sentencing is the rule in Dallas County
courts. This creates a free crime atmosphere for
second and subsequent offenders. Concurrent sen-
tencing is permitted under Article 42.08 of the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure. By law it is the
prerogative of the judge to permit his sentence to run
concurrent with previous unserved convictions. Juries
do not decide.
Of the 99 convicts interviewed at the Texas Depart
ment of Corrections, 37 were serving sentences on a
concurrent basis, while only one man was serving one
sentence after another.
One man said he was serving 17 concurrent 5-year
sentences for armed robbery.
This practice is common knowledge among the
criminal subculture and is, therefore, actually
responsible for a great number of crimes since the
deterrence or threat of prosecution is removed from
the mind of an offender once he is filed on by a police
agency. The offender is actually driven and en-
couraged to commit crimes by a system which imposes
financial need for money to defend himself against
criminal allegations on the one hand, and on the other
removes additional criminal sanctions for the sub-
sequent crimes he does commit.
Parole and Probation
A number of people benefit from both probation and
parole and become law abiding citizens. But a 1970 FBI
report on persons rearrested after release in 1965
quoted in Chapter II that 56 per cent of those probated
and 61 per cent of those paroled were rearrested within
four years.
Parole and probation are humane treatments and
deserve a try, but this study indicates that they cannot
be used to treat repeat offenders. Increased and im-
proved treatment of offenders on probation and parole
may also ease the problem.
Prison Release
It is hard to get into prison in this state considering
nondetection (73 per cent in 1971), reduction of charge
(22 per cent in 1971 of those arrested) , probation (28 per
cent in 1971 of those true billed), and nonconviction (42
per cent of those filed on in 1971). Figures from the
Texas Department of Corrections show that 40 per cent
of their inmates from Dallas County do return. Fifteen
530
per cent manage to get to the Texas Department of
Corrections three or more times. ^ Because of the
difficulty and crowded court dockets, far too few habit-
ual criminal cases are prosecuted in this country 7
An analysis of the judicial statistics for the Dallas
Police Department in 1971 indicates that of the 2,306
grand jury true bills for Index offenses, only 34 per cent
actually received a prison sentence. This data is
gathered from monthly reports of the Criminal Investi-
gation Division on Cases Filed With The District At-
torney and an annual Data Services printout on Police
and Court Releases. Documentation is on Table 22.
This study strongly indicates that control of the
repeat offender is the primary means of reducing
crime for the criminal justice system. If a house is
burglarized in this city today, there is a 70 per cent
chance the burglar has been subjected to the criminal
justice system before. In all Index offenses except rape
(42.5 per cent) , the chances are over 50 per cent.
>
1 1
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE
ELAPSED TIME
1
FOR 1971 COURT DISPOSITION BY NUMBER OF DAYS
Filed by The Dallas
Police Department
Table 19
Index
Grand
County Criminal Courts
Criminal District Courts
All Courtst
Offense
Jury*
1 2 3
1
2
3 4 5
6
7
Mean
Median
TM'iipHpi-
52
43
OCO
661
272
296
373
324 435 625
199 353 262
232
204
164
214
388
259
338
238
IVILU UCl
Rape
^t\A
134
Robbery
Agg. Asslt.
35
68
^nn
217
722
231
412
263 199 248
559 370 290
197
269
146
174
204
385
208
340
285 311 464
Burglary
Theft
35
40
10
260
590
191
248
222 204 185
344 335 84
124
155
110
155
164
229
188
169
131 65 183
A|iff\
40
297
385
159 173 177
166
143
214
173
Average Time
Elapsed In Days
46
277 300 446
3%
277
265 250 193
166
140
271
271 1
• Figures Indicate No Bills C
)nly
Source: Dallas Police Department Annual Report
t Not Including Grand Jury
Disposition
on Court Dispositions for 1
971-May
1,1972
531
M
Ui
^,
w
fc
u.
o
>-<
w
en
^
2
c
o
M
E
H
u
M
2
g
1/3
a
&
u
M
«
£
N
H
(A
u
D5
cs
oa
§
CO
Q
o
5 u.
o
CO
M
CC
•<
o
o
0)
to
nJ
e2
Cm
O
■o
0)
(0
s
(0
•H
Q
1-1
CM
r-l
00
CNJ
vo
CO
vo
O
J-
J-
ON
CM
CO
m
-p
H
3
O
o
-H
O
•H
M
W
•H
Q
i-<
C
•H
e
•H
H
O
o-
CO
CO
o
CM
CM
ON
CO
r^
u^
CM
VO
CM
M3
1-1
J-
i-l
r-l
00
vo
CM
ir
t>-
CO
1-1
1-1
vo
vo
vo
CO
CM
-^
1-1
VJ^
CO
J-
VO
r-l
CJv
vo
rv-
00
CM
c^
CM
r-l
1-1
J-
o
r-l
CO
c^
ro
Cvj
r-l
CC
r-l
r-l
vo
vo
J-
C3N
VO
Cvi
1-1
1-1
O
C^
CM
CvJ
Ov
r-l
u^
r^
CVl
O
CO
-P
M
3
O
o
I-I
c
• H
E
•H
M
U
>>
■p
c
3
O
u
r~
o
O
o
CO
1-1
r^
o
Cvl
Cv-
Ovi
o
rH
o
o
r^
o
o
00
<-l
(M
o
1-1
Cv-
o
1-1
o
vo
o
VO
r-l
r-l
Grand
, 1
Jury
CNJ
(M
O
1-1
CM
CM
CJv
O
CM
J-
o
CM
vo
ON
CO
CO
ON
X
0)
C
M
(0
c
<M
o
T3
p.
H
,o
O
CC
-P
1-1
m
10
<
<
M
n)
r-l
M
3
m
Q)
o
-p
3
<
m
r^
ni
-p
CM
r--
UN
iH
-p
^-^
u
o
>,
p.
nJ
(U
?-
tc
r-l
at
iH
3
Cv-
ON
<
U
-P
<)
C tpi
<u
e
w
-p
c
^
o
•H
P.-P
<u
•H
w
(0
()
0)
P.
C)
in
.1-1
■1-1
rH a
O
Uh
-p
a
o
rH
CJ
rH
0)
c
M
o
..
<u
C)
u
3
<)
cn
o
O
•H
•o
c
0)
M
3
hU
•H
532
<
O
■z.
a,
^ a
CO «i
< .2
O -3
PC
3
•z.
E-<
<->
MD
<fl
^
-H
J-
o
H
(M
m
H
0)
0)
(0
x;
c
-p
0)
o
tH
iH
o
O tM
3 x:
<; E->
>:
M
i-i
u
T3
(U
-P
■)->
i-l
<fl
p
>
n)
n)
w
M
w
t)0<l
UD
<
1
00
r-l
J-
M3
CM
O-
O
z
M
Q
■z.
W
PL.
CO
en
<»;
w
►J
Pi
M
H
o
CO
>
M
(U
C^
XJ
o
XJ
r^
O
(K
-a
■^
-l->
+>
r-l
0)
3
>
n)
n)
M
u
w
hD<:l
t>0
•<
1
XI
X)
o
SO
\o
r-
r^
>
M
ni
C^
i-i
CM
W
i-H
M
3
pq
J-
c^
cv
CM
CD
J-
CK
0^
C\J
lo
m
CM
CM
00
r-C
CNJ
CO
W
o
<.
PC
pq
o
2;
CL,
CO
w
CO
«:
o
w
►-5
•X.
Eh
O
CO
«
Ah
M
nJ
r-)
3
PQ
T3
a>
+j
+j
r-\
<fl
3
>
n)
nJ
m
M
to
M
4)
XI
XJ
O
«
(1)
pi
n!
T3
O
O
o
CM
CM
o
^
c^
C^
CM
CM
CO
1
CM
00
CM
CJs
3
U
XI
0)
C
O
•H
-P
O
(1)
CO
c
o
■H
-P
d
o
•H
W^
•H
•P
0)
T3
M
-P
0)
6
-P
U
nJ
ft
0)
O
<u
o
o
CM
CO
o
u
c
<M
•H
o
n
c
M
0)
0)
PL,
XI
e
(0
3
(U
z
(Q
cd
CJ
^
a>
>
o
H
0)
O
ij
0)
u
0)
<
M
3
>
X
H
X
O
•H
•H
O
E-1
fr.
fc
to
E-i
nJ
P3
0)
(U
o
>A
o
-p
M
<
^
•H
bo
H
X
0
O
o
:s
•z.
H
CO
533
C*
Oi
tH
tf
o
p^
•w
CO
S
O
•—4
!=
u
fe
CO
a.
<
111
H
u
CO
ps
e
U
IX
O
«
P
rt
CO
Q
D
•-3
J
<
2
HH
S
t— t
p:5
O
eg
Ed
n
n
o
<y>
■^
00
CM
CO
f~~
in
CO
«J-
r-(
^
*»•
o
CM
00
as
r—
en
r~
en
CM
en
0)
1^
n
«»■
CM
s
ro
^
in
r^
f~~
en
1^
CM
■•->
CT>
ro
U3
o
1 —
^—
t^
1 —
CO
^
1-
»*•
■"
>—
-(->
4->
CO
»»•
»»•
CO
in
<Tt
tn
en
in
VO
•*
«!■
o
<M
O
CT>
00
»«■
r~
<3\
in
en
>*
o
r^
to
CO
ID
»—
IT)
vo
o»
«*■
in
1—
r^
o
ro
r—
^r
£
05
VC
< —
b-"
V
\
\
\
\ «^
\
\ in
x°
\
\
\
N^
\
X
O
\
\
\
\
\ro
\
XCM
X
\
X
X
X
A
4
\
\
\
\
•— A^
A
'^'X
A
cn\
\
\
*\
\
^
k\
\
\
\
;=\
^
<j\ \
co\
^\
\
\
^\
\
-\
^
r^
CO
o>
^
in
CT>
to
en
"*
<n
CO
t-~
r-
(O
00
ID
CM
CM
o
CO
in
r—
r~
CM
CM
in
■fj
in
ro
CM
O
CM
1 —
CO
CO
r^
CM
«3-
vo
o
CsJ
CM
CM
r—
r~
O
,^7
■—
t:^
__.
\.
k
\ vo
\ ,_
X"*-
\ «3
X
\
\
\,
^
V
-fj
V)
\
\
\
\
X
X
X
X
X
X
\
X
<H
\
\
\
\
"*"\
lA
\
A
\
\
A
\
A
0
\
\
\
\
co\
D \
roX
X
■"X
\
X
cm\
\
in\
<:\
\
\
\^
CO \
rvj \
-\
\
ro\
X
\
CM \
A
vo\
^^
^
<T.
t^
CM
lO
en
to
lO
o
CO
o6
CO
^
M
<a
r—
\D
CM
in
VD
en
CO
in
CM
CO
r^
r~
■u
r-~
^
n
o
00
CM
r—
CO
"4-
en
r—
CSJ
00
o
00
00
ro
CM
»-
•—
V
V
\
*v
\ 00
^ CO
\ 1^
V '^
\
"\
\
y
\'
5
Vj
\
\
\
\ C3
\
\ f^
\to
X
X
X
\
X
\
\
\
\
\o
\
\
\
A
M
\
\
\
\
vo\
o\
r— \
<=\
\
X
A
\
co\
S
\
\
\
\
"*\
VO \
1^ \
r^ X
.-X
X
X
x> \
\
^x
t \
\
\
\
o \
CO \
CM \
CO \
\
X
— \
\
00 \
N
\
+>
to
CM
o
CVJ
ro
CO
m
vo
CM
CM
l-~
a^
00
.-1
«j
«a-
«o
00
^
r^
r^
vo
r—
CO
in
^
O
CM
3
o
r^
«!■
CM
CM
r~
m
r—
«*
VO
1 —
CM
«c^
vo
W
(0
1—
ID
in
CM
"—
v-^
\
\
V
\ in
\
Voo
\ *"
\
\
\
X
V
<
\
\
\
\
\v£
\
\
\
\
\
\
A
1
\
\
\
\
A
lA
cA
tA
X
X
■^\
\
cdv
\
\
\
\
r^A
f-X
loX
to \
.-X
\
X
"3- \
\
'iiX
<>:\
\
\
\
C3 \
^\
in\
•^X
\
x
^ X
\
V0\
(O
CO
CVJ
^
CTl
00
in
r~~
in
in
^_
vo
r~
in
••J
^
00
lO
CO
o
CM
CO
00
00
CVJ
«a-
o
00
o
o
00
CT>
«*
r—
r^
t^
r—
^—
CO
ro
>.
»-
ro
CM
u
\
r —
S,
\
V *o
V
S. , —
\ °°
V
V
\
\
V
V
B
V
\
\
\
Y
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
x>'
\
\
\
\
A
oo\
'ji'X
(nX
inX
\
\
A
\
!5\
<?'
-r \
\
\
\
,— \
o \
CM \
CM \
CO \
\
\
"*" \
\
CO \
cc
-c \
\
\
\
00 \
'I- \
\
\
- \
X
CO \
<0
^
in
in
VO
CM
to
O
to
en
1^
CO
en
CM
4->
vo
i^
CO
en
CM
>*
to
in
CM
CO
CO
^
O
1^
r—
in
CM
1 —
CM
r—
1-
^-^
\
\
\
\ "^
\
\
X
V
\
\
X
\
x
d)
\
\
\
\
\CM
\
X
X
X
\
X
X
X
X
a
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
_x
^
\
\
\
\
QrV
c\
to\
o\
io\
\
\
co\
\
cm\
•*\
\
\
\
vd\
cm\
■^x
r-X
toX
>.
X
co\
X
"*X
>
\
i
\
CM \
^ ^
\
\
X
N
\
\
X
^ N
lO
^-
r**
r--
CO
CM
o
CO
00
CO
*
en
00
^
■»->
ro
CO
o
CM
CO
CM
in
CO
CO
o
r-.
o
OJ
CM
CM
CM
r—
r~
1—
M
I 1
(U
V
^v
^
V
\.
V
v
V
\,
V
\
\
^
\
X'o
\
\
\
V
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
"^
\
A
A
coX
\
\
o\
\
A
\
\
\
\
A
s\
cm\
\
in\
\
\
oo\
\
--\
<t \
\
N
\
cm\
\
\
\
X
X
\
X
\
-\
•u
l/t
to
c
o
o
T3
0)
0)
'a.
■!->
3
CO
-a
a>
10
0)
•1—
<u
r—
■t->
■o
►J
HI
T3
■t->
to
♦J
u
•f—
r—
«i
■i->
c
to
to
(O
tn
•r—
1-
U-
3
s.
3
0)
0)
0)
(U
to
lO
O+J
S.
<u
>»-
o
o
10
s-
C71
O
_J
t/)
+J s_
cn
f— O)
o
o
a.
<4-
c
i.
"oj
s-
a.
c
13
x: c
CLC
01
c
0)
<c
a.
lO
to
+->
o
■o o
•U-i-
t '1
c
u
D£
r>
<*-
.c
<t
CO
OIO
•.--o
-t-TJ
o
o
>»-
<4-
>♦-
<_)
o
i-
s_
3C
r— C
•f—
<
LO
(/)
o
O
o
c
(U
S- 0)
<i>
30)
■!->
1/1
T3
c
o
Ci_
4jl —
t/^O-
yr>
,
S-
s-
<4--.-
c
l/l
c
c
(O
<u
Ol
U
Q
■o
1 —
tn c
O to
1 — c/1
o
<D
OJ
3
-§
■i
:3
c
01
n3
c a>
to OJ
IT5QJ
Q.
<•-
<»-
*->
x>
-^
■tJ
lO >
s- to
•Uto
to
H.
<•-
^
3
3
0)
c
>f—
O
S- 3
01 lo
OiO
'r-
O
o
■z.
z
q:
Z3
li.
\-
1— 'o
Q.O
h-<_3
Q
534
CO
VO
U3
CM
00
m
CM
00
<T>
CM
lO
vo
in
CO
CM
CO
00
o
o
ir>
CM
00
ro
00
^
^—
CT>
n
n
CVJ
ro
r^
CM
s,
,
lO
ro
r^
r~
>;r
r—
in
r^
00
ro
o>
CSJ
«3-
■•->
a>
CO
ro
'S-
ro
CM
o
o
CO
n
f^^
1—
\
\
\
V «
\°
V-^
V^
\a.
\ °
\. o
\°
\°
\°
v°
\ °
VCM
\ t^
\"
\
\
\
\
V
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
A
A
A
<A
<^
o\
o\
A
rA
ooX
A
A
A
A
o\
A
A
\
A
ro\
^
\
\
\
°\
co\
CM \
\
\
\
\
o\
\
\
,
n}
■»->
r-^
o
CD
CO
r—
lO
»*■
CM
in
r—
CM
O
^_
O
o
in
tr>
lO
o
^
VO
^—
in
1—
CM
"*
«*
>: —
^
V
\ ■»
\
\ oo
V H
\ «!>
\ ^
\ °
\ C3
\ *~*
'\ <=>
\ *"*
\ "*
V °
^ o
V
\
\
\ "^
\ O
\vD
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
A
A
,_\
"^
o \
o\
A
'^X
cm\
A
^\
°\
o\
Oo\
°\
A
\
° \
IT) \
i^\
\
\
o\
'l-X.
vo X
\
^— \
\
«a- X
\
X
CD ^
cvj N
-* ^
CO \
>
^_ \
\
X
^_
<a
CT>
a\
C7>
r-
ro
00
in
00
,
f—
^
f—
o
p.
■»->
O
lO
VO
00
^
ro
CM
f—
in
o
OJ
VO
U3
CM
CM
\
<
V
V «*
\. _
V
\ *
\ *
\ *
\ o
\'^
X '^
\ o
r"'^5y
\
\
\
\ 1 —
\ "^
\t-
\ '^
\ 1 —
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
X""
\
V
X.
\
\
\
X.
\
X
\
A
A
A
lA
A
o\
o \
C>\
inV
oo\
A
r— \
o\
o\
A
o\
A
o\
in\
U1 \
\
\
ro\
CM *
CO \
cm \
^\
\
\
\
CM ^
\
,^
lO
^—
r^
r^
CM
U3
CO
1^
r—
CJ>
lO
^.
r—
CM
CM
CM
+->
CO
o»
<Ti
^
00
in
CO
CO
o
CSJ
CQ
ro
1—
V
V
\
V
\ ^o
r""
X -
\ ^
X •-
X "^
Xcv,
\ °
\ ,—
\ "^
X CM
\ <^
V
\
\
\ cr>
\"
\ H
V
V
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
c:\
liX
o\
o\
o\
A
lA
oo\
"A
ooX
c>\
A
^-\
CA
A
\
ro\
CT«\
f^vT
\
\
oo\
•^X
^— *
inX
cm\
cmX
\
\
CJ \
cs,\
ro \
CM \
\
\
^
\
\
\
x
\
\
\
x
,
C\J
n
ro
<y\
'J-
in
m
o
ro
r^
r~
IT3
o
00
00
CM
00
CO
•»->
CM
CVJ
O
t—
,
>v
\
^
I
V
.
V
k
V ■
\
^
I
V
\
\
\ 00
\°
\CM
V
\"
\°
\°
\°
\°
\°
V
V
\°
\°
\
csj\
n\
C\\
\
\
\
io\
A
o\
ooX
o\
o\
o\
inX
A
o\
13 \
o \
00 \
C3\
°\
O \
o \
"S-X
"" \
\
\
\
\
X^co \
\
\
\
csj \
CM \
\
^
^ \
^-
\
\
X
\
>
>
\
\
,
113
ro
CTv
CJ>
IT)
"d-
CD
00
C3
CO
^..
,
(^
CM
■t->
1^
<J3
V£>
CO
O
1—
V
V
\
\ ^
\ "="
V ^
T"-^'
V en
^. ,_
\ *"'
\ <=>
X <=>
y ,_
\ o
^o
X «^
v°
\
\
\
V
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
cA
A
A
A
\
\
\
A
A
o\
\
A
o\
A
°\
°\
o \
"" >
lO \
-^N
0\
°N
° \
coN^
\
\
\
X
X
>
,—
10
n
r^
r—
CT>
«3-
CM
00
^~
t
in
OJ
vo
in
■l->
r-.
o
o
^
cm
o
1-
V
S.
k
i
V
I
V
V
V
V
\
\
\. ^
\°
\os
V
\ "—
\°
V
\
\°
Xin
XCM
V
V
V
A
A
A
,„\
A
o\
o\
CT>\
A
A
A
<A
A
A
A
A
A
UJ\
^\
o \
»o\
\
\
\
CM \
\
\
\
\
\
\
cm\
\
\
<
(J
(U
H
C
c
^J
<u
a.
■u
Ll.
T3
Ol
u
[Jb
(U
o9
0)
"O
c
o
oo
0)
lO
01
4->
w
>>
U
JH
o
c
s_
c
O
Vi
a;
ID
0)
S-
oo
^—
■o
•a
-t-"
a. 1
i.
fn
1^
0)
0)
4->
e
a.
■o
f"—
•f—
-a
VI
+->
C
0)
oS
E
Ol
r—
00
<u
1/1
+j
(U
lO
■4->
OJ
•r—
t/1
.c
•r—
•I —
+->
T3
■o
JZ
03
c
s.
OQ
<1>
n}
irt
E
3
•f—
1 —
, —
a>
01
+J
0)
J3
lO
(U
3
<U
to
U1
cr
c
•f—
•r-
c
sz
lO
<♦-
O
VI
-C
O
L-
rs
o
Ol
lO
ro
0)
S-
c
+J
^
l—
Q.
o-
O
«£
D.
■D
O
Lu
Ll.
o
_J
a.
o
535
46.400
CRIMINAL JUSTICE FALLOUT— 1971
FIGURE 4
This figure is displayed to give a graphic picture of
the fallout in the criminal justice system from time of
offense to time of punishment. The greatest loss is in
lack of arrest and lack of charges being filed.
1. Kor tne 46,400 known Index crimes listed,
there were only 10,229 arrests.
2. Of these 10,229 arrests, only 3,294 persons
were filed on with the grand jury. The others
were released, juveniles, unfounded, or filed
on for a reduced charge.
3. Of the 3,294 cases filed, approximately 30 per
cent (988) were no billed.
4. Of the 2,306 true billed, 385 or 17 per cent were
released by the courts. The remainder
received sentences ranging from the death
sentence to a monetary fine.
2,306
1,91.S
782
F:"":f
r X
t :-_:
t' ::.:;-
1
Index Offenses .\rrest
.Adults
Charged
.Adults
Indicted
(. on\ icted
Prison
Source: Dallas Police, 1972
I
95-158 O — 73— pt. 1-
-35
536
Chapter VII
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The actual amount of crime being committed by
repeat offenders in Dallas cannot be determined of-
fense by offense, however, the foregoing information
builds a strong case to support the hypothesis that they
are responsible for a substantial amount. Valid
estimates can be drawn from arrest statistics, actual
case histories, and inmate interviews. Our findings
allow us to draw the following conclusions based on
these inquiries.
THE REPEAT OFFENDER
It can now be reasonably concluded that well over
one-half of all Dallas crime is committed by repeat
offenders. Arrest statistics indicate that almost 60
per cent of the suspects filed on bv the Dallas Police
Department are repeat offenders.^ Further, a review
of multipleH)ffense clearances by the Criminal In-
vestigation Division in February and May of 1972, show
that repeat offenders account for 90 per cent of the
multiple case clearances investigated by this
Department with first offenders accounting for the
remaining ten per cent.^
Additionally, the interviews with 99 Dallas County
inmates at the Texas Department of Corrections on
page 17 indicates that repeat offenders claim to have
committed 55 times as many offenses as a like number
of first offenders or 99 per cent of all offenses admitted
by inmates.
Summarizing, we find that repeat offenders ac-
counted for 60 per cent of the serious cases filed, 90 per
cent of the multiple clearances, and commission of 99
per cent of the offenses admitted by inmates. Although
these statistics cannot be averaged or mathematically
combined, a preponderance of evidence exists sup-
porting an estimate that over one-half of Dallas' crime
is being committed by repeat offenders. Such an
estimate is both conservative and logical in view of
these findings. 1"
It would seem to follow that by removing the repeat
offender from society, crime will be drastically
reduced. This was borne out when the Dallas Police
Department recently conducted an experimental
procedure in a high burglary incidence area to control
these burglaries. The major difference of this project
over similar efforts was the securing of cash bonds on
repeat offenders apprehended in this area. Control of
repeat offenders proves more effective than other
police practices such as saturation patrol.^^
Further, a concentrated effort to control repeat
offenders would probably have the greatest impact in
the crimes of burglary and robbery. These two offense
categories had a higher number of repeat offenders.
The study indicated that almost 70 per cent of the
persons who were charged with burglary were repeat
offenders. Robbery also reflected a high repeat of-
fender involvement with 64.5 per cent of the persons
charged being repeaters. ^^
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
We found there is no continuity of information on
criminal cases to permit measurement, evaluation and
correction of problems in the criminal justice system
in Dallas. This is probably the most important finding
of this research with respect to the criminal justice
system, for without sufficient information about the
system's problems, present and future, they lay
dormant and unsolved.
An example of the lack of sufficient information to
track criminal cases is evidenced by our inability to
learn the current whereabouts in the system of the
7,052 Index offenses filed last year by this Department.
They simply cannot be found unless each individual's
name is specifically traced using hand searches of
records.
This lack of continuity leads to a lack of coordination.
This means the agencies of the system have different
or even conflicting goals.
Chapter VI points out that the police often con-
centrate on clearance rates while this study indicates
prosecution of the repeat offender would reduce crime
more effectively. Before effectiveness can be
measured in any segment of the criminal justice
system, it must be determined what are the goals of
that segment of the system. Why are efforts expended?
What do we intend to accomplish? What will that ac-
complishment mean?
It is not the intent of this study to infer that the sole
purpose of the Dallas PoUce Department is to put
people behind bars. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied
that it is the purpose of this Department to respond to
each and every complaint by a victim of a crime with a
vigorous effort in bringing the perpetrator of the crime
before a court of proper jurisdiction.
Since our society provides a filtering system for
these offenses in the form of the grand jury, it can be
said that the objective of the police role should be to
receive and record complaints of crimes; to unfound
those complaints which can be proved invalid, thereby
establishing the total number of crimes known to pohce
for this Department's jurisdiction; to investigate all
offenses; to arrest those offenders which can be legally
arrested; and finally, to file cases against adults with
the office of the District Attorney, so that they may be
brought before the grand jury for further processing in
the criminal justice system and to file cases against
juveniles, when appropriate.
In the past, law enforcement has not looked upon the
"ijmber of cases filed as part of its measure of ef-
537
fectiveness. An example of this is the fact that the FB/
Annual Report discusses how many offenses were
solved, determines what per cent of those cases filed
received conviction, but does not relate either what per
cent of the cases or crimes known to police were ever
filed with grand juries or district attornies, or what per
cent of the cases cleared were ever filed with grand
juries or the district attornies. This builds in the minds
of policemen the concept that when a case is cleared,
they have succeeded in their role The consequence of
this viewpoint by policemen equates clearing a case
with success. This is not the case since clearing a case
is only an administrative act which does not in any way
deter crime. This has led to such practices on the part
of law enforcement officers of cleaning up the books;
that is, permitting a person who is being charged with
one offense admit to a number of other offenses which
later go uncharged in court.
Another consequence of such a viewpoint is that it
permits law enforcement to passively accept the
rejection of cases by the District Attorney's Office or
the failure to convict by court through faulty
testimony, or poor case preparation without triggering
vigorous action to rectify shortcomings.
If, for instance, policemen equated success with
convictions or cases accepted by the District At-
torney's Office, they would perceive that a case had
failed when and if a poor investigation had been con-
ducted, and when the officer was unable to support his
case with sufficient evidence to convict or even file his
:ase.
Such an attitude would lead to a strengthening of
investigations by investigating officers, insistance by
police managers that cases were adequately prepared
for prosecution. Finally, it would provide incentive to
the Police Department to strengthen its capabilities
through self-evaluation where offenses could not be
filed.
It is certain that some members of law enforcement
as well as some members of the District Attorney's
Office would argue that any attempt on the part of law
enforcement officers to file more cases will flood the
courts with cases, since courts are already over-
crowded, grand juries overworked, prosecution staff
limited, etc. However, the question must be asked, are
those cases which are not being filed too many to file,
or too weak to file? Or is it a case of both? Similarly,
would the filing of some additional cases on suspects
only clog the wheels of justice or would this serve as an
incentive to the courts to turn from the practice of
allowing convictions to be served concurrently, avoid
imposing illogical penalties, and ultimately bring
at>out the reevaluation of the court and prosecutor's
part of the criminal justice system.
One can understand that in the case where the
crimes of an occasional suspect have been so
numerous that it would be unrealistic and counter-
productive to file all his cases, however, it would seem
that the judgment about how many of the cases to file
with the grand jury legally lies with the District At-
torney's Office. Therefore, the best course of action
would seem to be that of filing all the cases with the
office of the District Attorney, and assume that he
exercise the prerogative of his office in determining
which cases are to be presented to the grand jury.
In the event the District Attorney determines that it
would not be in the best interest of public policy to file a
case prepared by the Police Department with the
grand jury, it would t)e most helpful if this Department
could receive information concerning this judgment
along with comments from the District Attorney's
Office setting out what could have been included to
strengthen the state's case. By such actions, the
Department would be in a position to better evaluate
its efforts.
Certainly, as has been stated before, there will be
occasions where the reason for not filing the case is
that there are too many cases to file. On the other hand,
one can anticipate that there will be instances where
the reason for the failure to file the case is that the
District Attorney feels that there is insufficient
evidence. Certainly the Department needs a reply in
either instance.
When the Department has filed a case which, in the
opinion of the District Attorney, is not supported by
sufficient evidence it should be incumbent on police
management to objectively evaluate these cases and
determine the cause of the insufficiency and to take
such action as will ensure that an optimum level of
investigation is obtained. Further, when the fatality of
the case is due to a lack of testimony or poor support
from the public, the Department needs the information
to evaluate the amount of public assistance being
given. Since the Police Department cannot function in
a vacuum, and must have witness, complaint and
general public participation in the prosecution of
crimes, the District Attorney rejection on these
grounds will be important data for the Community
Services Division.
We discovered in this study that offenders are often
free for months after arrest and have substantial
financial burden placed on them for bond fees and
attorney costs.
Available data indicates that cases filed by the
Dallas Police Department and tried during 1971, in
both district and county criminal courts averaged 271
days or over nine months. These same cases ranged
from an average lapse time of 193 days in one court to
446 in another. The average lapse time for grand jury
action in 1971, was 46 days. (See page 34)
We found that this leads to two other criminal justice
problems. Repeat offenders often amass huge bonds-
while continuing their criminal careers. These bonds
are usually not ensured by cash. Repeat offenders
learn to use the bail system as a means of continuing
their careers in crime after arrest. Some examples are
available of repeat offenders who have abused their
bond privileges on page 32 of this study.
Bonds ensure future appearances in court — they do
not preclude additional criminal offenses. The
criminal justice system has no device for releasing
criminals to await trial while assuring that no future
crimes will be committed. Time and time again we
have documented cases where persons were freed on 5,
7, and 9 bonds awaiting trial. The presumption under
law is that the person is innocent until proven guilty,
yet reason demands some protection for the public
against a person who would require so many court
appearances.
Nevertheless, our attorneys tell us that there is no
538
provision under criminal law in Texas to enjoin a
person from committing future crime.
Our conclusion is that concurrent sentencing is the
rule in Dallas County courts. We feel this creates a
"free crime" atmosphere for second and subsequent
offenders. It is our conclusion that sentences running
consecutively would deter crime more than sentences
served concurrently. We do not wish to usurp the
judges prerogative of determining length of sentence
but we feel concurrent sentencing is detrimental to
control of repeat offenders.
Of the 99 convicts interviewed at the Texas Depart-
ment of Corrections, 37 were serving sentences on a
concurrent basis, while only one man was serving one
sentence after another. (See page 16) One man said he
was serving 17 concurrent five-year sentences for
armed robbery.
This practice is common knowledge among the
criminal subculture and is, therefore, actually
responsible for a great number of crimes since the
deterrence or threat of prosecution is removed from
the mind of an offender once he is filed on by a police
agency. The offender is actually driven and en-
couraged to commit crimes by a system which imposes
financial need for money to defend himself against
criminal allegations on the one hand and on the other,
removes additional criminal sanctions for the sub-
sequent crimes he does commit.
Lack of information prevents us from pinpointing the
cause, but the time lag between charging an offender
and sentencing him leads to abuses of the bond system
and concurrent sentencing practice. Pinpointing the
agency is not as important as identifying the problem.
Bail is a constitutional right but a nine month delay
before trial is not. Nor is concurrent sentencing a right.
The overall problem is lack of coordination and
common goals. A great amount of additional research
is needed to learn methods of identifying and
prosecuting persons responsible for heretofore un-
solved crimes. According to Dr. John Holbrook, the
typical offender who is apprehended and prosecuted by
the criminal justice system is not necessarily the same
as the typical offender who escapes punishment. Dr.
Holbrook feels that added research may prove the
latter to be a much more intelligent individual who is
able to evade arrest and avoid prosecution more often
than his less successful counterpart.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The primary conclusion reached by this study is that
there is a lack of negative sanctions sufficient to
prevent a person from becoming a repeat offender. In
fact, once his life style is set toward crime, the system
appears to facilitate his career.
The bond system does not deter further criminal
behavior, yet supplies the monetary need for further
criminal action. The police department seems to be
seeking offense clearances rather than actively
seeking to control the repeat offender. The courts do
not seek additional punishment or rehabilitation time
for repeat offenders, rather they routinely give con-
current sentences to them. These, plus other problem
areas that have not been quantified in this study, cause
the criminal justice system to appear ineffectual
against the repeat offender. The first offender may be
inhibited by the system, but that is not part of this
research.
Based upon the foregoing facts, the followingi
measures are recommended as ways to combat repeat
offenders.
• To control the repeat offender, the criminal
justice system must become a true system.
The present system is, at most, only satisfactory in
administering justice and rehabilitation to first of-
fenders. However, for the repeat offender who strives
to circumvent the criminal justice system, the un-
coordinated haphazard efforts to divert him and
correct his behavior are largely ineffective. The key
word in creating an effective system is coordination. A
search for coordination in the present system is
disheartening.
In view of this, it is recommended that a task force
be formed under the auspices of the Dallas Area
Criminal Justice Council to develop measures for
coordinating the efforts of the several components of
the criminal justice system in this area. The product of
this study should be a report to the Executive Council
of the Dallas Area Criminal Justice Council setting
forth specific steps to lead to a lasting system for
coordination.
• There should be a prosecution policy within the
Police Department which is understood by each
component of the criminal justice system, the public
and most importantly, the criminal.
During the month of May 1972, it can be observed
that there was almost a direct one-to-one relationship
between the cases filed by the Dallas Police Depart-
ment and the number of persons charged, in other
words, an average of only one case was filed against
each person charged. However, a closer look will
reflect that in many instances a person had ten, fifteen,
twenty cases which were cleared. Similarly, there
were many cases filed out of the city against persons
by other jurisdictions which cleared Dallas' crimes. As
far as can be determined, the decision to file or not file
a case is an arbitrary one made by an investigator
and/ or his supervisor.
Therefore, it is recommended that a no-quarter
policy against criminal offenders be implemented,
clearance rates notwithstanding! If the police serve
warning to the public, the criminal, the FBI/UCR and
the press that they will no longer give credence to the
number of offenses cleared, that preventing crimes
and prosecuting offenders are their priorities, and
further that they expect a sharp decrease in the
clearance figure, they will be in a position to throw off
the need to bargain for those clearances with the
criminal.
Following that, it is recommended that a task force
be convened to develop a prosecution policy which is
aggressive. This pohcy should be couched in terms
which offer the sternest possible threat to criminals in
Dallas. The task force should be charged with
developing policies which seek stringent prosecution,
multiple case prosecution, habitual offender con-
victions and queuing of cases where necessary.
539
• In order to reduce crime, the criminal courts of
IjHthis district should serve justice as rapidly as is
practical after indictment.
A long delay between the time that a case is filed and
the time of disposition allows the repeat offender to
commit many more crimes. Two additional district
courts will be recommended for Dallas in the 1973
Criminal Justice Plan being submitted by the Dallas
Area Criminal Justice Council. These courts can and
should be used to try repeat offenders as quickly as
possible in order to remove these high-risk offenders
quicker than first offenders. Similarly, appellate
courts should be encouraged to follow this lead. A 60-
day arrest-prosecution-appeal period is essential to
crime control.
• The legislature of this state should pass laws that
would increase the difficulty of a repeat offender ob-
taining subsequent bonds when he commits further
offenses while on bond and devise additional sanctions
(or offenses committed while on bond.
At the present time, many repeat offenders are free
on several bonds. Just the requirement that sub-
sequent bonds be cash bonds could reduce the repeat
offender's ability to make repetitive bonds. Also,
legislation calling for the forfeiture of secondary bonds
upon conviction for a crime committed while on that
bond would assist in preventing the repeat offender
from continuing his criminal activity and inhibit bond
abuse.
• The legislature of this state should develop
legislation preventing the use of concurrent sentences
for persons who are repeat offenders.
It is not within the scope of this study to recommend
how long a convicted felon should be incarcerated for
his offense, but the criminal justice system cannot
cease sanctioning criminal acts just because it has
invoked a primary action against a repeat offender.
Some form of judicial reform is needed.
I
540
FOOTNOTES
1
2
4
5
6
This entire section is taken in context from the 1970
issue of the Uniform Crime Report pubhshed by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
This information obtained from a monthly report
published by the Criminal Investigation Division of
the Dallas Police Department.
3 Bond information obtained from the Dallas
Sheriff's Office, Bond Desk on June 1, 1972.
These figures obtained from the Dallas Police
Department Annual Report on Court Dispositions
for 1971, printed May 1, 1972.
Taken from the Dallas Police Department Special
Report on Multiple Cases Pending Trial, February
1972. ■"
This data taken from Texas Department of
Correction's Special Statistical Report to the Dallas
Pohce Department, April 1972.
■^ Report dated December 29, 1971, distributed by the
District Attorney's Office - Combined Report For
The Year 1971 for all Criminal and Judicial District
Courts — Indicates that four persons received life
sentences as convicted habitural criminals.
8 This chapter is footnoted to supply the reader with
textual reference. See page 18.
® See page 24 for reference.
1" This estimate is also supported by the Birth Cohort
Study that determined the juvenile repeat of-
fenders committed 84 per cent of the offenses. See
Table 4 on page 9 for reference.
" See page 32 for reference. (Patrol Crime Control
Project)
12 See page 22 for reference. ( Comparisons)
541
Chairman Pepper. Call the next witness ?
Mr. Lynch. Chief Peters from San Antonio.
Chairman Pepper. Chief Peters, I want to tell you that your able rep-
resentative in the House, and our colleague, the Honorable Henry
Gonzalez, was especially anxious to be here this afternoon to introduce
you and your associates. He had to take a plane to go back to San
Antonio, and he asked us to express his regret he would not be here
to hear your statements, although he is very much aware of the hne
program you are going to tell us about today. _
Incidentally, Chief, you have one of the interesting cities of this
country, one of the beautiful cities. My regret is I don't get to go there
often enough. It is a very hospitable city.
Mr. Lynch, will you proceed?
Mr. Lynch. Yes, Mr. Chairman. . . • -r. v
Mr Emil E. Peters is the chief of police of the San Antonio Police
Department. He has been with that department for 31 years and has
served as chief since 1971. Mr. Peters is a graduate of the FBI Acad-
Mr. Peters, if you have a prepared statement would you deliver it to
the committee at this time, sir ?
STATEMENT OF EMIL E. PETERS, CHIEF, POLICE DEPARTMENT,
SAN ANTONIO, TEX.; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT A. BENFER,
CAPTAIN; THOMAS T. FENLEY, SERGEANT; AND ROBERT GLENN
AND ARTHUR TREVINO, PATROLMEN
Mr. Peters. Yes, sir. Thank you. And I thank you, Mr. Pepper, and
the other members of the Crime Committee for inviting us up here to
tell you about what we feel is one of our success stories m San Antonio.
I would like to introduce my people : Capt. Robert A. Benf er, who
heads my crime bureau ; Sgt. T. T. Fenley, who is one of the three ser-
geants in the special squad we are going to talk about ; Robert Glenn
and Arthur Trevino, who are members of the special squad we call the
t^fisk TorcB.
Now, I would like to explain their attire because this is part of
their game. They wear very casual makeup and, in fact, I think that
is one of the things we attribute much of the success to.
If I can go back very briefly and tell you a little bit of background
of our story, because I think these are historical things that might
bespeak the bare bones budget and why we never implemented a pro-
gram of this type prior to the availability of some startup funds
through LEAA.
Very briefly, in the past 2 years, our city has been one ot the growing
cities of the Nation in experiencing these growing pains and the usual
constrictions and frustrations of a growing metropolis. Twenty years
ago, our city had a population of 490,000, a police force of 380, and a
total police budget of $1,800,000. Today, our population is 748,000;
the area is 243 square miles while our police force numbers 1,000, with
a budget of $15 million. I point this out to illustrate the job of "catch
up" we have been faced with. Consequentl}^, the demand for men was
always greater than the force and any shift of a sizable number of
men to a special assignment left other duties or needs for policmg
undone.
542
In the fall of 1970 our task force was born — made possible by a
discretionary grant of LEAA in the amount of $146,000. The grant
made possible the use of a 20-man team on overtime ; thus not penaliz-
ing other needed operations. It provided funds for 6 months, then
one-half of that amount for another 6 months during which time
we were to assign 10 regular duty men w4th the promise to fund 10
more regular duty men at the end of the second 6 months. A 2-year
grant from our S.P.A., the Texas Criminal Justice Council provided
an additional sum of $84,000 through which we increased the squad
jby 10 men on an overtime basis with our promise to continue with
regular duty men at the end of these 6 months to make for a perma-
nent squad of 30 men. That is where we are today. At this time, our
task force is funded by our city as a regular activity of the police de-
partment, the budget being in excess of $320,000.
The objective is to reduce crime or to slow down the increase in
crime; to increase arrests by interception and other means than the
standard preventative patrol and investigation method. The name of
the game became inconspicuous surveillance and stakeouts in high
crime areas or wherever a crime wave became obvious. We therefore
adopted a very nonpolice appearance. The squad's vehicles are re-
claimed abandoned unclaimed vehicles from our vehicle compound.
Radio communication is provided by portable radios. Varied dress and
personal attire replaces the uniform or business suit.
As you see them today, the way they wear their hair, or they wear
a beard, or whatever it is depends on the assignment. These men
are reserved for special assignments, do not do normal patrol and,
therefore, blend into the environment perfectly.
The impact, in very brief form, can well be measured by the crime
picture in our city: In 1968, 41,958 major crimes; 1969, 46,423; 1970,
43,279 ; 1971, 39,643 ; and 1972, 39,715.
The above figures differ from those on the FBI report only in that
these are larger as they include assaults and misdemeanor thefts —
which makes for the total picture — however, if the lower figures are
used, the arc is the same. We peaked in 1969 — then effected good
decreases in 1970 and 1971. In 1972, we have a small increase — 3 per-
cent— but well below the higher years or the 5 -year average.
The morale of this squad is exceptional — equaled only by their suc-
cess, and the reputation of this squad among the criminal element
as well as the citizenry is just the way we want it. It is great. In one
more effort to get LEAA aid, I have just completed an application for
an add-on — a 1-year budget for overtime to be used only and specifi-
cally to add to the capability of this squad by temporary expansion to 50
or 70 men, when needed, by using other off-duty officers in addition
to this squad on an overtime basis. This would provide occasional semi-
saturation with stakeout men during a wave of robberies, burglaries
or gang-type assaults. Again, one year's experience would provide suf-
ficient justification in future budget hearings to make it a regular
component of the operation.
As I mentioned before, the name of the game is inconspicuous attire.
These men are assigned daily, according to a design or plan, based on
experience through reporting and computer aided history. Captain
Benfer and his crime bureau decide where we need help : Burglaries,
thefts, or robberies and, accordingly, try to anticipate where these
men are to work.
543
The work hours vary. They may be daylight or nighttime, by and
large, a blending with the environment with these old model cars in
dress that fits the neighborhood, whethei- overalls, plumbers' gear,
or what have you and that has contributed immeasurably to their
success,
Mr. Lynch. Chief Peters, this committee has heard previous testi-
mony from Commissioner Patrick Murphy of New York, and this
morning from Commissioner John Nichols of Detroit, concerning pro-
grams quite similar to your program. New York's is called the city-
wide anticrime section. It has been quite effective in making felony
arrests for street-level violent crimes. Would you describe for us what,
in your judgment, the success rate of this special force has been in
your city ?
Mr. Peters. Particularly, in the category of robbery and burglary,
we have done a tremendous amount of good. In fact, in 1970, when we
first went into operation, our robberies dropped probably 50 percent
in 2 months because we used the stakeout method. Then, of course, we
started concentrating on burglaries and thefts, parking lots, what have
you, and did a lot of good in that, and then again we shifted back to
robbery; but we do work on all major crimes. Although on special oc-
casions, when there is a type of panic arising through maybe a rapist
that is repeating or something of that order, we will use them in these
fields.
Just in December and January, the past December and January,
again the robbery picture went, what we thought was, out of sight in
San Antonio, and through the months of January and February we
concentrated on that at that time. We increased it through the method
I have described.
I hope for some aid from the criminal justice council in Texas and
a new grant Avhich would enable us to use more men and add to these
30 men. In a city as large as ours, with a number of business houses,
30 men is not enough to provide saturation whatsoever. There are
times we can add .50, 60, 70, and really do the job. and recently we did
just that. Of course, we can't continue too long without bankrupt prob-
lems in our budget. We did that through February and March and
the figure was reduced 100 percent.
Chairman Pepper. Tell us, how do you deploy your men? Do they
walk or go in cars?
Mr. Peters. We have the vehicles we have reclaimed from the vehi-
cle pound. We, of course, like other cities, have the job of picking up
cars from the streets that are abandoned, and, after 60 days, because
of space, they have to be sold under our law.
We select from this option the cars that might prove valuable in our
work and claim them, take ownership by the city and, after some nec-
essary repairs in our garage, put them in the field.
They are everything from 1962 Dodges to pickup trucks and what
have you. This, along with the portable radio which, of course, is not
unique, but along with this provides us mobility and, of course, com-
munication for these improvised vehicles.
Mr. Lynch. Do your officers patrol singly or in teams ?
Mr. Peters. In this squad, normally in teams.
We will do stakeouts singularly. For instance, we had a run on ice
stations, or all-night shopping marts, so thei-e we singled them out.
We put men inside the building and, in a few cases, depending upon
544
the vision, the geography of the area, we would have maybe a second
man in the area.
Mr. Lynch. Have task force members in your city been involved in
situations which resulted in fatalities to offenders ?
Mr. Peters. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. How many ; could you tell us ?
Mr. Peters. I believe three.
Mr. Lynch. And that is since when ?
Mr. Peters. December of 1970.
Mr. Lynch. Could you tell us the circumstances surrounding those,
what kind of offense ?
Mr. Peters. Business burglaries and groceries.
Mr. Lynch. Were they on stakeouts ?
Mr. Peters. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. You have at present 20 full-time men ?
Mr. Peters. The first year was 20, yes, sir ; under the original grant.
Now, we have 30.
Mr. Lynch. And they, in the normal course of their duties, dress as
the gentlemen at the table with you are dressed ?
Mr. Peters. Right. And it's been including coveralls, the appearance
of migrant workers, plumbers, what have you, depending upon the
type of crime. That is the squad.
Mr. Lynch. What is your police per capita ratio ?
Mr. Peters. About 1.3.
Mr. Lynch. That would make you about the lowest police per cap-
ita ratio of any of the 13 cities that are appearing before this commit-
tee. Do you need more policemen in San Antonio ?
Mr. Peters. We do. We have an authorized strength of 1,075. 1 have
about 40 vacancies; discounting the ones in school now, our strength is
986. We are right at a thousand and the class in school would put us
over.
Mr. Lynch. Do you need more policemen than your authorized
strength ?
Mr. Peters. Correct.
Mr. Lynch. How many policemen do you need to significantly re-
duce the crime rate ?
Mr. Peters. I believe that compared with cities throughout the Mid-
west, and not beginning to compare with Washington, D.C., which has
five times as many, or St. Louis with twice as many, I would say 1,400
men in ratio to the cities throughout the Midwest.
Mr. Lynch. You told us you have 1.3 policemen per thousand in-
habitants. Washington, D.C., has close to seven policemen per thousand
inhabitants, which is about five times as many.
Mr. Peters. They have about 5,000 officers.
Mr. Lynch. About five times as many per capita.
Mr. Peters. No, five times as many.
Mr. Lynch. They also have five times as many per capita, which is
really a better measure.
I wonder if you could have some of your officers briefly tell the
members of this committee what they do in a normal day's course of
operation, how they police now and how it differs from duties which
they performed as uniformed officers ?
Mr. Peters. Right.
Sergeant Fenley ?
statement of Thomas T. Fenley
Mr. Fenley, Yes, sir.
The assignments, like the chief said, are drawn up as to what specific
crime area is needed. We have many different ways we go about this.
Some of the ways are by picking up known burglars if burglaries hap-
pened to be the problem. We stake out their houses when they leave
in the morning, we follow them. Then when they commit a crime we
make the arrest and the police officer is a witness to the crime, which
has led to better prosecution than depending upon the citizen coming
in and testifying ; which most of the time on burglary they weren't
there when it happened anyhow.
We have other ways of staking out known "fences," where stolen
property is sold, and just by going up and stopping everybody that
comes in there we recovered a lot of property that way. However, in
these cases our prosecution is no good but we nm the fence out of
business.
We do the same with narcotic connections.
If theft happens to be the problem, for instance, car prowling, most
of it takes place at the average shopping mall. We place one, maybe
two, on a roof with field glasses, and the other teams are mingled in
with the vehicles. As soon as the car prowler is seen in action, the men
on the roof radios — we have a special channel that doesn't go through
the dispatcher's office — it to number so and so car whatever it is, "A car
prowler in action." The men go over and again make the arrest as the
crime is being committed.
We have been used as leg work — canvassing a neighborhood — for
some of the crime bureaus such as homicide, on murder cases where
it is imperative that as much information could be compiled as soon
as possible. We have staked out areas where rapists have set up a
pattern. It took us a week on one, 3 days on the other, and we got ap-
prehensions on both of those.
Mr. Lynch. Do you have a system of making out contact cards? I
wonder if you would describe that to the committee and tell the com-
mittee what value those cards have.
Mr. Fenley. Yes, sir. The contact card is the standard contact card
which most cities have and which are in the municipal police admin-
stration. For each person that is contacted, a contact card is made out
on them.
Mr. Lynch. What does a "contact" mean? What kind of person
would you contact?
Mr. Fenley. This would be a person under suspicious circumstances
or a known criminal. The card is completely filled out. It gives where
the contact was made, the name of the subject, who was the subject,
what type of vehicle he was driving, and the reason for the contact.
These are then turned over to the intelligence bureau and also to the
crime bureau, whichever bureau possibly would be interested in it.
The intelligence bureau puts it out every morning. Once a month they
print up an intelligence bulletin which is sent out on the local police
departments, Texas Rangers, department of public safety, and it keeps
an up-to-date listing of the vehicle license numbers, the type of ve-
hicles, who so and so is running around with.
Mr. Lynch. In essence, a field intelligence report?
Mr. Fenley. Right. That is exactly what it is.
546
Mr. Lynch. What value do those serve to other units in your
department ?
Mr. Fenley. Well, there is a lot of time a crime has not been re-
ported at the time the contact is made. And if we can place the sub-
ject in the area of where a crime took place, then the crime
bureau will have this information; and through diligent detective
work they can come up and clear their case most of the time through
the fact the subject can't say he was not in town or that he was in
another part of town when this took place. We have a contact card
showing he was in the vicinity.
Mr. Lynch. Do you serve any supervisory role in the task force ?
Mr. Fenley. Yes, sir,
Mr. Lynch. Would you describe what that role is?
Mr. Fenley. It is coordinating the assignments from Captain Ben-
fer. Captain Benfer gives us an assignment, it is the supervisor's duty
to review it. If it is a stakeout-type assignment, we go out, check the
area, we make recommendations to our men, and this is one thing
I want to stress. Because a man is a good policeman does not neces-
sarily mean he will be a good undercover or task-force-type officer.
Mr. Lynch. Fine. With that remark, would you tell us how you
select men for this special task force assignment ?
Mr. Fenley. Yes, sir.
Well, from the very beginning, when we first began to set up our
permanent task force, we went into the 201 file of each one of the men
who had written requesting to come to the task force. We checked to
see how if they had bad reports or anything like that, and then we
talked with the immediate supervisor. We checked to see what dispo-
sition, whether they were under stress, whether they could hold up,
whether they were cry babies, and, of course, you have some where
the stakeout isn't exactly to their liking; they wouldn't want it. We
even went back into their records as far as their service records to see
what caliber a person they were. Then we personally interviewed them
and asked them their reason for wishing to come to the task force.
We didn't want somebody that was just looking for a home for retire-
ment or something like this. We wanted people that would produce.
"When we round up, our average length of service on the department
from our task force officers appeared to be 5 years on the department.
Mr. Lynch. Does this kind of duty require an aggressive policeman ?
Mr. Fenley. It takes an aggressive policeman and one with great
imagination.
Mr. Lynch. I wonder if we could ask Mr. Trevino why he volun-
teered for the task force.
Statement of Arthur Trevino
Mr. Trevino. Basically, the main reason was I wanted to do inves-
tigative work, and in the patrol function the techniques we use, we
haven't enough time to actually investigate on calls we respond to.
Mr. Lynch. In your present work you have a chance to do inves-
tigatory as well as regular noninvestigatory work ?
Mr. Trevino. Yes, sir ; I believe time is of the essence, we have time
to spend with the subject the whole day, for that matter. We mi^ht
spend the whole day, the next day, a whole week, living with him.
547
We might get up with him in the morning, go with him to work, and
follow him until he commits a crime.
Mr. Lynch. How long have you been on the task force ?
Mr. Trevino. Since June of last year.
Mr. Lynch. How many arrests have you made since you have been
a task force member ?
Mr. Trevino. I couldn't recall the number.
Mr. Lynch. Has it jjeen a good number ?
Mr. Trevino. A good number, yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. A good number of felony arrests?
Mr. Trevino. The majority, 99 percent.
Mr. Lynch. What kind of felonies ?
Mr. Trevino. Robberies in action, burglaries in action, possession of
narcotics, narcotic paraphernalia.
Mr. Lynch. Is this kind of police work more dangerous to you than
patrolling the streets in uniform ?
Mr. Tre\^no. I wouldn't say it was ; no.
Mr. Lynch. Chief, I wonder if you could tell us, have you lost,
or had shot, or otherwise injured members of your task force?
Mr. Peters. We have had some shot at. We haven't lost any. We
have lost two patrolmen in the last 12 months.
Mr. Lynch. But not task force members ?
Mr. Peters. No.
Mr. Lynch. Under what circumstances did you lose the patrolmen ?
Mr. Peters. Patrol officers patrolling the district. We use one-man
cars around the clock and have for some 30 years, but that didn't
necessarily play into this nor was it the reason.
Mr. Lynch. You have used one-man patrol cars for 30 years?
Mr. Peters. Since 1939, over 30 years.
Mr. Lynch. You must have been the first department in the coun-
try to start that.
Mr. Peters. Wichita, Kans., and San Antonio were the two orig-
inally. Maybe Kansas City.
Mr. Lynch. Do you use foot patrol ?
Mr. Peters. Very few. It is, like Chief Camp mentioned, a luxury
we had to abandon when the city spread so rapidly. We do use some
in the downtown area now. And, in fact, beginning Monday, I will
have a little money through revenue sharing I am going to spend on
overtime, following the pattern or St. Louis plan.
Mr. Lynch. Do task force members, in fact, spend more time in
quasi-foot-patrol than regular policemen do?
Mr. Peters. No ; except they can be assigned to a given area or on
a given crime or particular crime and it doesn't take them away from
their patrol duties or the duties that would otherwise be left undone.
They are available for this purpose.
Mr. Lynch. Do you use task force members on decoy assignment?
Mr. Peters. Decoy and stakeout; yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. I wonder if Mr. Glenn could tell us why he volimteered
for this kind of duty. I take it you did volunteer ?
Statement of Robert Glenn
Mr. Glenn. Yes, sir ; I did. I volunteered to get out on more exten-
sive investigation work, because as a regular patrolman you are
548
identified with a marked car and wearing a uniform and you can't get
close to the criminal element.
Mr. Lynch. Do you think you are more effective now as an unknown
officer out on the street dressed the way you are than you would be
in a uniform ?
Mr. Glenn. Yes, sir ; I do.
Mr. Lynch. Have you made more arrests since you have been a task
force member than you made regularly as a uniformed officer ?
Mr. Glenn. Yes, sir. Being a uniformed officer, the majority of
arrests used to be misdemeanors, whereas now they are felonies.
Mr. Lynch. How long were you a regular uniformed officer, sir?
Mr. Glenn. A little over 2 years.
Mr. Lynch. Captain Benfer, I wonder if you could describe briefly
for us how you operate this unit.
Statement of Robert A. Benfer
Mr. Benfer. My area of responsibility is homicide, robberies, bur-
glaries, and thefts. In those duties I have regular detectives, lieuten-
ants, and sergeants, but th6 problem we have now is that the detective,
I suppose, spends 50 to 60 percent of his time riding to court and
making reports. He has very little time for investigating.
And when we develop the problem, we develop an area. Kecently
we had a rash of robberies of icehouses. The time spent on these other
things kept the detectives and the small detail we do have, due to lack
of manpower, from being able to go out there and really follow up any
leads they had. This particular instance, we took the area that was
being hardest hit and we used the entire task force, plus extra men on
overtime duty, and put them in these icehouses. There were several
apprehensions. Mr. Glenn, here, managed to be in one place where a
holdupman ran and Glenn did shoot the man, shot him in the leg.
It helps me in the fact that when we do have a problem in any
area, and the detectives cannot handle it themselves, we have a man
to put into this one particular problem area until it is solved. In
most cases it has been solved. Rape cases, burglary cases, robbery cases,
it is just throwing the whole group into that particular situation until
the problem is solved. It may take 2 or 3 days, it may take 2 or 3 weeks,
but we leave the man there until it is solved."
Mr. Lynch. Could you use more members in the task force in a city
your size if you were without present budget restrictions ?
Mr. Benfer. Without budget restrictions, yes, sir; we could. The
task force is 3 percent of the total police department. And due to other
problems, I am sure we can't get that many men.
Mr. Lynch. Do you publicize the existence of this task force within
the city of San Antonio?
Mr. Benfer. It is a known fact, whether we publicize it or not, be-
cause the papers publicize any time a task force man makes a good ar-
restr— so and so arrested by task force stakeout or something to that
extent.
Mr. Lynch. Do you regard the number of task force members as
security information in your department or will you release that
publicly ?
Mr. Benfer. I don't understand the question.
549
Mr. Lynch. Do you secrete the number of members you have on
your task force, or if a newspaper reporter or citizen asks you, do you
tell them how many people serve in this unit ?
Mr. Benfer. That is a well-known fact within the department and
the city.
Mr. Peters. I might add we have, several times, increased sporad-
ically for specific needs. I would like to have more flexibility to do
that; this is the first specific need. At such times of course, we don't
release our plans until after the strike is made, and then it comes out.
Mr. Lynch. What kind of public response and what kind of re-
sponse from the press has the task force received ?
Mr. Benfer. Vei"y well received by press and by the citizens ; I know
that by the demands made on me. Everybody that has a burglary calls
up and wants the task force because the word has gotten out in the last
2 years of the success they have achieved; the capability they have;
how they can do that.
So, frequently, businessmen, even residents now, call and ask for the
task force. On an individual case of that nature, we can hardly use
it but we look to use it where there is an area inflicted or a pattern
established. That is where we feel it is most effective.
Mr. Lynch. As you may know, the STEESS operation in Detroit
was subjected to rather sustained severe criticism in the Detroit press.
That came as a result of a number of fatalities inflicted upon people
in Detroit, people in the act of committing crimes, by members of
STKESS. I think your testimony was that three people have been
killed by task force officers.
Mr. Peters. I am going to reduce that to two.
Mr. Lynch. After those fatalities, was there any kind of severe
editorial criticism of your department in the newspapers ?
Mr. Peters. No, there wasn't. There was a group, very active alt that
time, that tried to come back at us on one of the shootings. It was a
burglar, and different activists groups put up the complaint. But the
grand jury, the district attorney's office, FBI, they all looked into the
grievance and they all ruled in our favor ; the officer was acting under
law, under circumstances that would make any reasonably prudent
officer react the way this officer did when he shot the burglar.
Mr. Lynch. I take it your city has a substantial number of Mexican
Americans and a substantial number of blacks, and in all likelihood
other ethnic groups. Do you try to get relatively the same ethnic mix,
or racial mix, on the task force ?
Mr. Peters. We try to have.
Mr, Lynch. How are you doing ?
Mr. Peters. Well, we are not too far off, I don't think.
Bob, maybe you had better answer that.
Mr. Benfer. We have approximately 50 percent Mexican Ameri-
cans, we have two blacks. Our population in the city is some 51 per-
cent Mexican American and about 9 percent black. The rest are Anglos.
A little over 50 percent are of the minority group, or in our case,
the majority.
Mr. Lynch. Would you, for instance, use Officer Glenn to conduct
a task force operation in a predominantly black neighborhood?
Mr. Benfer. He would blend in a lot better in that neighborhood,
yes ; but he is not restricted.
550
Mr. Lynch. He might use Officer Trevino in a Mexican American
neighborhood ?
Mr. Benfer. Yes.
In other words, where they would fit in better. They are not re-
stricted to that area.
Mr. Lynch, I understand that, but as a technique of making them
"invisible."
Mr. Benfer. That is correct.
Mr. Lynch. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Winn ?
Mr. Winn. It sounds like your operation task force is working very
well. You remarked in your opening remarks that you get these cars
that have been abandoned and a great many of them look like what
we call clinkers. Why do you go to clinkers? Because some of
the narcotic peddlers and pushers are driving Cadillacs.
Mr. Peters. That is true. We were using a Lincoln, a couple of
Buicks. They weren't late models, of course, but none of our burglars
and hijackers are driving around in that type of vehicle.
Mr. Winn. They are driving the older vehicle ?
Mr. Peters. Yes, sir; and in the neighborhoods where we were
working.
Mr. Winn. Is that because they are not doing well or because they
don't want to be conspicuous ?
Mr. Peters. Both. In the neighborhoods, parked on the street, and
stakeouts, I think it would be less conspicuous than a shiny new car,
and certainly less conspicuous than our normal stalf detective cars,
unmarked, but always giveaways.
The blending in or disguise is so well that the week before last the
task force men were staked out and a pedestrian was walking down
the street and a car drove by and shot him in front of the two task
force men. They were parked. Tliis was a petty gang-type thing that
breeds in the West Side particularly, and, of course, our task force
men pursued him and apprehended him. He really just didn't expect
at all two officers were watching him. They didn't realize he was
going to shoot.
Mr. Winn. The intent was to kill ?
Chairman Pepper. Was the man killed ?
Mr. Benfer. No ; he was chased down a blind alley and then turned
on the officers, of course, and shot it out with them. He, in turn, was
shot but he wasn't killed. He was shot in the leg and shots were fired
at our men.
Chairman Pepper. Did they catch the men that did the shooting?
Mr. Benfer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Winn. For instance, if Mr. Glenn goes into a black area, or pre-
dominantly black area, and sits in, and begins to make contact is he not
fairly easy to spot after a while ? I mean, because he is big, looks like an
athlete. I don't know. It seems to me if a man was in either that or Mr.
Trevino's, in maybe the Spanish-speaking area, could be singled out if
they were in the area too long.
Mr. Peters. I think our cars have been the secret to continuing suc-
cess. They switch cars.
Mr. Winn. So they don't look like the same guy to the same people.
If they were in the same car a couple of weeks in a row, or 10 days
551
they would think that guy, we see him all of the time. Of course, they
can change their garb, too.
Mr. Peters. That is true. On our automobiles, we just feel that has
played a tremendous part in the success of the program, because these
old "clinkers" don't usually last too long anyway.
Mr. Winn. Some of those don't look too good.
Mr. Peters. Mr. Trevino was relating to me he arrested the same guy
twice. This guy swore he knew he was a police officer, but he turned
around and arrested him a week later and he didn't recognize him.
Mr. Winn. Do you shave your beards and mustaches and things to go
along to make it lit the occasion ?
Mr. Benfer. Some of the group have beards and shave them off.
Some leave them on. In other words, they don't stand out as police of-
ficers, even though they may be recognized if they step out in front of
someone. But thev don't go down the street standing out as police of-
ficers in old clinkers. The thing I believe the character looks at is a
car, and the second time to see who is driving it. And they know our
police cars. They know our plainclothemen's cars.
Mr. Winn. Do the task force members go into a place, han^ around
the pool hall, go to the beer joint, or wherever the problem is, where
they can pick up word about possible activities or possible robberies
being planned ?
Mr. Peters. Not so much ; that would be an undercover type of work.
We use some men in undercover work.
Mr. Winn. I am having a hard time, even after hearing of this
same type of operation three times in the last couple of days, how you
differentiate between an undercover or task force officer.
Mr. Peters. The undercover man does not make arrests.
Mr. Winn. He never makes arrests ?
Mr. Peters. Normally not, in our department. He will operate until
he has fingered, and in the meantime we try to get sealed indictments
and serve the warrants. Because once the warrant begins to be serv^ed,
he is known.
Mr. Winn. I didn't particularly look, but I don't remember seeing
any pictures of girls or women.
Mr. Peters. Not in this force.
Mr. Winn. Would there be any place, because there are women con-
nected with particularly planned robberies, getaway cars, things like
that. At least, they are in the movies that way and you read about them.
I guess there are. There are lots of women in jail.
Mr. Peters. We haven't thought about using any as yet. It is pos-
sible. We don't have too many women right now. We use one in homi-
cide on rapes.
Mr. Winn. How is that working out?
Mr. Peters. Very well.
Mr. Winn. You just have the one ?
Mr. Peters. Just one in homicide, one in juvenile, and two in records.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Winn, I would like to comment to the chief that
Commissioner Murphy is using a number of female police officers in
his units similar to yours, and the commander of that unit indicates
that they are even more effective than men and they are delighted with
the performance of the women who are their counterpart of your task
force, and hope to increase that number because they have been so ef-
95-158 O— 73— pt. 1 36
552
fective, especially at getting muggers and robbers. They have been used
primarily as decoys.
Mr. Peters. I would envision we would eventually, also. We, as T
mentioned before, are undermanned, and, of course, we always have
to watch every program to be sure the tail doesn't wag the dog. So our
task force is about as big as we can afford at this time, in ratio to our
total personnel.
Mr. Winn. You, obviously, have a pretty efficient police department,
but it would seem to me from the trends that there are going to be more
and more places to use women. I suppose in task force work that women
might be able to do a better job, because of the use of wigs and things
like that, than the men.
Mr. Peters. True.
Mr. Winn. Although one of the task force members said their men
wore wigs and I am sure that is pi-obable but I don't think they would
last too long. I think they are too easily spotted.
Mr. Peters. I would think so.
Mr. Winn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Chairman Pepper. Gentlemen, if you don't want to state it for the
record you need not do so, but where do you gentlemen carry your
badge and gun ?
Mr. Peters. They, of course, keep that concealed. They use one with
a flapover so they can put it in their pocket to show when the occasion
calls for it.
Chairman Pepper. Wliat about your weapon ? Do you have a place
to carry that ?
Mr. Peters. Right.
Chairman Pepper. Gentlemen, this is the kind of thing we have
been so much interested in, the innovative, ingenious approach. What
you are doing is letting the criminal know that he never knows whether
some fellow walking down the street or sitting in the car is a police
officer or not. Just like the two fellows who shot that man down. The
ordinary civilian would have been afraid to testify he saw him shot
down. The culprits thought they would get away with it the way these
criminals do get away with public shootings like that. Yet, there were
officers who saw it and were not afraid to trace them and not afraid
to testify they saw them do it. That seems to me to be an ingenious
way of dealing with the criminal.
We want to commend you. You have done a very fine job.
Without objection, I would like to put in the record the document
here entitled "Samples of Crime Task Force Case, 1970-73, San
Antonio Police Department, San Antonio, Tex."
Without objection, it will be incorporated in the record.
[See material received for the record following Mr. Peters' testi-
mony.]
Chairman Pepper. Chief Peters, we want to thank you and your
associates for coming here and giving us this very interesting presenta-
tion. We wish you good luck and further success. We hope that some-
thing can be done to help you get more money, more police, and more
task force members. Personally, I think the Federal Government ought
to put very large funds into the programs to carry out such things
as you do, to give you more effective personnel. I hope someday we
will be able to get such.
553
Mr. Peters. We thank you, Mr. Chairman. And on behalf of our
department and our city, we thank you for the privilege of coming
before you.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much. Good luck.
[The following material was received for the record:]
Samples of Crime Task Force Cases (1970-73), San Antonio Police
Department, San Antonio, Tex.
We were having a rash of Convenience Food Store (called Ice Houses in our
area) holdups. It seems "Ice Houses" are prime targets here because they are
so numerous and very popular for quick purchases and usually have only one
clerk on duty. At one "Ice House" we had a Task Force man staked out in the
storeroom behind the checkout counter, at about 11 P.M. a man entered the
store, looked at some books, then went to the register drew a small pistol (known
as a Saturday night special) and informed the clerk, "this is a stick up, put
the money in a paper bag". The clerk complied. At this time the Task Force oflScer
slipped out the rear door with shotgun in hand and confronted the hijacker as
he left, this so startled the hijacker, as he looked down the barrel of the officer's
gun, he threw down his gun, the bag of loot and screamed loudly.
Many other cases on file were cleared by this arrest. This subject has been
convicted and is now serving his time.
In an area of the city where a large hippie colony was gathered, information
was received that they were dealing in stolen goods and narcotics. Two Task
Force teams were assigned to obtain license numbers and descriptions of the
vehicles in the area. One team was sent into the area and the other team remained
outside the area as a backup team. Everything was going smoothly until dark
when the hippies sent out "guards", one of the Task Force men was on foot, the
other had remained in the car. The man on foot radioed the man in the car that
the "guards" were headed his way, he slid down on the seat and acted passed out.
Three hippies sat on the hood of the car and lit a "joint" of marijuana and smoked
it while they debated rolling "the drunk" in the car (the Task Force officer),
but soon tired of this and did nothing but finish smoking the "joint". The other
Task Force officer was stopped by the "guards" but he put a story on them
about looking for some street in the neighborhood and said he wanted to buy
some stuff, they almost took him in but instead advised him to leave. The Task
Force officer walked to the end of the block caught a bus and rode a couple of
blocks, got off and contacted the backup team, they waited for the "down and
out drunk" officer to join them.
With the license numbers obtained it was found that most had been used in
burglaries, by setting up stake outs on the houses and watching the flow of
articles being taken in, a Search Warrant was obtained and a large amount of
stolen property was recovered. The "Burglary and Theft Ring" was broken up.
A rapist had established a pattern in a section of town consisting of a large
number of duplexes. The Homicide Office asked Task Force to see what could be
done. A map of the area was obtained and the addresses and times of the bur-
glary/ rapes were marked. The area was then checked for the best placement of
men. Three locations were selected (in the shape of a triangle) one on top of a
fire house tower and one on each of the two other jwints. We worked from mid-
night to 5 a.m. each night. On the 7th night a subject fitting the description was
spotted prowling, he spent about two hours trying windows in the neighborhood
looking for one unlatched. He then approached one of our stakeout autos, leaned
on the truck (two Task Force men were lying on the seats inside) then walked
on past. The officers felt the suspect might have seen them so they stopped him.
In checking our files we found the man was wanted on traffic warrants and placed
him under arrest. While searching the subject a screwdriver was found on his
person which belonged to Southwestern Bell Telephone, a screwdriver matching
this one was found on the scene of one of the rapes. Homicide was contacted and
a check of the suspect's fingerprints matched those from some of the crime
scenes. Two cases of rape and three cases of burglary were filed on the man.
A pistol taken in one of the burglaries was recovered from the suspect's mother's
home. The su.spect lived in one of the duplexes in the area of the crimes.
The subject has been convicted and is serving concurrent 2.5-year sentences.
One afternoon a brutal murder was committed, two Task Force men were
assigned to do the "leg work" in the case. This consisted of knocking on doors
in the neighborhood and talking to i)eople. finding out what they had seen during
554
the day, then following up on all the information they received. Before the day
was out, they had develoi)ed enough information for Homicide to "make their
case". It turned out to be the nephew of the victim.
The subject was convicted and given a life sentence.
While two Task Force officers were watching a car (used in a robbery the night
before) a known dope pusher parked nearby, from his position he could not ob-
serve the officers. As the Task Force team watched another car pulled up and a
package was passed by the pusher, then both cars left. Another Task Force team,
parked closeby, took over surveillance of the wanted car leaving the original
team free to follow the car with the package. A short distance later the car,
containing a man and woman, was stopped and the officers confiscated the pack-
age, in the package was 6^/^ grams of HEROIN. The couple was arrested and filed
on. By the alertness of these Task Force men we were able to also file on the
pusher who had boasted he was too smart to be caught.
The second Task Force team, that had remained at the sight of the staked out
car, made two arrests for armed robbery.
All five subjects are now out on bond awaiting trial.
Through Intelligence information, it was learned that three men were plan-
ning to burglarize a gun shop. It was further learned that they might also "hit"
another location (a lounge). Six Task Force teams were assigned (three to each
location). At approximately 11 P.M. the subjects arrived at the gun shop, waited
a short time, then got out of the auto with a crowbar and began working on the
door, seeing an auto approaching they dropped the bar, returned to their car
and drove away. About two hours later they returned, again prying on the door
but were still unable to gain entry, this time they took the bar with them and
left. About 35 minutes later the teams at the lounge location reported they had
arrived there and were "casing the place", but again they left this scene only to
return about an hour later. Upon their return they pried on the front door, both
side doors and the rear door, they could not gain entry here either and left the
lounge. Two Task Force teams followed them. The subjects went to an apart-
ment complex under con.struction. broke into one of the apartments, but did not
steal anything (it was later learned they intended to burglarize it the next night).
Leaving the complex they again drove to the lounge, after driving past several
times they stopped. Two men got out again and the car left the scene, one team of
Task Force men followed. On this attempt they FINALLY gained entry. The
team following the car was notified and all suspects were arrested. Through this
arrest it was learned these subjects had been involved in many burglaries in
San Antonio and South Texas, including the U.S. Coa.st Guard Armory at Port
Isabel, Texas. Information was also obtained on a "fence" with several hundred
dollars in property recovered.
The men have been tried and received 7 years.
Earlier this year a San Antonio Police Officer was murdered by a hijacker
fleeing from an establishment he had just robbed. All Crime Task Force per-
sonnel were pressed into service. The Detectives had six good suspects, all with
outstanding warrants for robbery. Within 30 hours, five of the subjects were lo-
cated and booked in jail by the Task Force officers. The one remaining suspect
was brought in by his father who had been contacted by a sergeant in Burglary.
This subject confessed to the robbery and the killing of the officer. By locating
the other subjects as rapidly as they did. the Task Force officers enabled the
Detectives to eliminate the five and concentrate on the 6th man, causing him to
"give himself up".
A footnote to this case should state in rounding up the other five men Robbery
Detectives were able to clear many outstanding cases that were on file.
The muder suspect also implicated another man and they are both now out
on bond, pending trial.
A subject was arrested in dowtown San Antonio for auto theft, by a team of
Task Force officers. The next day word came from the jail the man wanted to
talk to some Task Force men. Two men were assigned, the subject told them of
an international car theft and narcotics ring, of which, he was a member. Cars,
mostly expensive types, were being stolen in New York. New Jer.sey and Califor-
nia, titles were forged and license plates obtained, then the cars were brought to
San Antonio. The cars remained here until 6 or 7 were accumulated, then were
driven to Laredo, Texas, across to Nuevo Laredo, Mexico then about 20 miles
into Mexico where a large manmade cave was located, the cars were left there.
At this location a "lieutenant" of the gang would pick up heroin and cocaine in
return for the automobiles, he and the drivers would all return to San Antonio
555
where the narcotics were "cut" and taken back to New York, New Jersey and
California to be distributed. The local flunkies would each receive 10 grams of
heroin a day to sell for $40.00 per gram, the going price being $30.00. the seller
was allowed to keep the extra $10.00 from each gram as his pay. The subject
stated there were 12 to 14 street sellers and they were making many trips to
Fort Hood. Texas where a large market for narcotics existed.
With this information a conference was set up with the Narcotics Bureau,
the Auto Theft Bureau, the State Intelligence office, the Texas Rangers and the
F.B.I. It turned out each agency had .some of the above information and with
this, were able to tie it all together. After alK)ut three months of undercover
work we were able to break ui> the gang. At this time D.A.L.E. (oflSce of Drug
Assistance Law Enforcement) is still working on some of the top members of
the gang and have made some very good narcotic cases, plus recovering large
.sums of money which have been confiscated by the I.RS.
(Oflicers Report — January 5, 1973)
Cbime Support Group Annual Report
general introduction
The San Antonio Police Department established its Crime Support Group in
the Fall of 1970. It began with the training of policemen in the various police
taictics that would be needed in a semi-undercover type of unit. There were
approximately two-hundred and sixty oflicers that completed the sixteen hour
training requirement. This was made possible by the aid of a federal grant re-
ceived through the Criminal Justice Council in Austin, Texas.
Under supervision of the Intelligence Bureau Commander the Group began
active participation in police assignments with an assist to the Narcotics Section
of the SAPD on the night of December 2, 1970. Sixty-eight suspected drug of-
fenders were rounded up and brought in.
The next few months the Group was in the process of developing toward be-
coming a permanent unit of the San Antonio Police Department. This was done
on June 1, 1971 when the Group was formally made a permanent unit of the
Crime Bureau in the Criminal Investigation Division.
PERSONNEL
The Group began operation with a total of twenty oflScers. There were two
sergeants and eighteen patrolmen. These men were carefully selected for their
new duties. This was done by a close review of each applicant's official 201 file
with the view in mind of each one's potential that would be developed by careful
supervision from the sergeants in charge of the Group.
In February 1972 a new grant was put into use which enabled the Group to
exi>and operations with fifty extra officers working on their relief days. This
program of overtime was continued until June 30, at which time the funds were
exhausted. From this group of officers ten patrolmen and one sergeant was to be
selected for permanent assigimient to the unit. This was completed on July 7th.
As of the present time the Group is at full strength with three sergeants and
twenty-eight patrolmen. One civilian clerk is also assigned who assists in account-
ing, scheduling and the preparation of reports. This makes a total of thirty-two
men.
ASSIGNMENTS
The Group's basic assignment is to work in the areas of high crime impact.
This may be in any given area of the city. The assignment may be for one day.
two days or it may go on for weeks. The area of assignment may shift or several
areas may be covered at one time. It will depend ui^on which area or areas have
the greatest need. It is easy to .see that the unit nui.st be very mobile and flexible.
The current commander of the Group is Captain Robert Benfer. Chief of
Detectives. It is from his office that as.signments are approved and ivssued to the
.vergeants in the Group. They then work up a plan and a.ssign the personnel
accordingly. The following is a list of Sections that the Group has assisted the
current year: Burglary, Homicide, Narcotics, Robbery. Theft.
The above listed sections have received assistance in the form of day and night
patrols, surveillance of subjects and fences, gathering information, and rounding
up suspects for questioning. The Group has also supplied information and assist-
556
ance to the Department of Public Safety, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the Texas Rangers, the Federal Postal Inspectors, and various Police Departments
around the state.
METHODS OF OPEHATION
The Group being a semi-undercover unit, must have a certain degree of cover
in order to succeed in its objectives. To accomplish this the Group utilizes un-
marked pound vehicles for its assignments. These vehicles cover the complete
range of makes and models. They have been quite effective in that the criminal
element have had police in their midst and never aware of that fact until they
are placed under arrest. These officers wear their hair longer than the average
police officer. They also wear clothing that allows them to blend in with the
environment they are working in. They have been so effective in this that subjects
under arrest just don't seem to be aware that it has happened. In one actual case
two subjects came up, sat down on the fender and lit up Marijuana cigarettes
never aware it was an unmarked police car occupied by two police officers.
SERVICES RENDERED
This Group has had a unique opportunity to be of service not only to the
citizens of this city, but to the police department as a whole. The Group is com-
posed of the three major ethnic groupings in this city. This had enabled them to
go into all areas of the city and to gather information not always obtainable
by uniformed officers and by the Detectives. Some of the members of the Group
have had an almost unbelievable ability to know and keep tabs on the criminal
element within the city. A subject would be needed for questioning or a person
would be under a warrant for arrest and wanted by a Section in the Crime
Bureau. The men in the Group would go out and bring that subject in to the
station sometimes in a matter of hours.
In addition to supplying needed information on wanted subjects, the Group
also has been very diligent in making out contact cards on active criminals in the
city. These cards are forwarded to the Intelligence Office and are available to
all members of the SAPD. Current information as to addresses, vehicles and
associates of these subjects is listed on these cards.
The subjects brought in are also mugged in color portrait type pictures which
make for greater accuracy in identification. This file of pictures is maintained
in Captain Benfer's office and is available to members of the SAPD. Listed below
is the number of contact cards and pictures produced in this current year of 1972 :
Pictures taken, 1,701 ; contact cards, 1,835.
APPREHENSIONS 1972
The Group has had a very productive year in the number and kinds of arrests.
The Group has doubled the number of Felony arrests over the previous year of
1971. In certain categories of crime a reduction has been achieved by the SAPD.
It is believed by those in a iX)sition to know that one of the reasons for a brighter
picture in the fight against crime has been the Crime Support Group. Sui>plied
with this report is a chart showing the breakdown on the number and kinds of
arrests produced by the Group. Listed below is the number of arrests for this
current year of 1972 : Felonies, 688 ; misdemeanors, 503 ; total, 1,191.
SUMMARY
This report would just not be complete without a word about the morale in this
unit. There is an attitude of cooperation existing between the officers and their
supervisors that is reflected in some of the results produced this year by the
Group. Many of the accomplishments of this year have come from men working
on their off duty time. Many of the arrests were made on the way to work or on
the way home after regular duty hours. This is the result of PRIDE.
The officers and sergeants are pleased to be a part of, along with the other
units, of this San Antonio Police Department.
Sgt. Thomas T. Fenley.
Sgt. N. Russell Poppell.
Sgt. Robert L. Lewis.
557
E
o <u
E
Oiriroo — oou-> — orO'«t
C3 in (NJ CO CO
o^ CSJ o o o f^
o
Q.
<
o
C9
1-
o
Q.
o
o
a.
a. <u
<
UJ
O
^^
X
UJ
I-
o
o
l-
z
<
00
o
>-
or-— <0 — cviO'TO^-"
otvjooo— '— 'cocsiinoj
OvntViO'<aT~.OCMCI'-'P0
omo — ocvjocvioiT)"*
StOOO-^toO^-OCSJCO
ooocsoou^incsjoo^
OOOOOOC-JO«3-OCOIQ
OOO— I— •— '•*°<=2^
ig
CV) CO •—••—• f*^ "-^ t^
OO ^ro ^CM O
O ^" CD CO CM 1/5 CNJ
Lrt CO •— ^ ^ CNi ro r^
.— I CSi ^ — ' O P|-. --J
^to o^o r-^ ^
^ .— < O O <— ' ^^ to
4^00^CNJ^
o >— • o «— « ^^ to r*^ ^
CO
o
nj .
«1
a>
TO V
5 ~
Sza:<oDt-CD<SLi.o
(J3 I- .C<3
TO <J m^ ; * E
DO—-;; a> ^ ro^
<3S|— Qh-O
558
mo^tTTm!Z''\^^^ committee will adjourn until tomorrow
morning at 10 a.m., when we reconvene in this room
STREET CRIME IN AMERICA
(The Police Response)
FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 1973
House or Representatives,
Select Committee on Crime,
Washington, D.G.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 311,
Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Claude Pepper (chairman)
presiding.
Present : Representatives Pepper and Winn.
Also present : Chris Nolde, chief counsel ; Richard Lynch, deputy
chief counsel ; and Leroy Bedell, hearings officer.
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
This morning we close the first week of our hearings into street crime
in America.
During the course of this week, we have heard testimony and re-
ceived statements regarding effective, workable law enforcement pro-
grams designed primarily to respond to crime at the street level. We
have, for instance, heard testimony from three specialized anticrime
units from New York City, Detroit, Mich., and San Antonio, Tex. We
have heard testimony from Indianapolis regarding its very hea^^
commitment to citizen participation programs and on the benefits
which can flow from its policy designed to enable law enforcement
officers to use patrol cars as private family vehicles.
We have heard testimony from the Dallas Police Department re-
garding its very thorough study of criminal recidivism, and from the
same department we have heard testimony regarding a most imagina-
tive legal services unit which provides on-the-scene, in-house legal
assistance to street patrolmen.
We have heard testimony from the St. Louis Police Department re-
garding its most promising hardcore juvenile delinquency team coun-
seling program — a program which this date has achieved significant
results.
These and many othei- agencies have testified at length before this
committee and have confirmed our faith in the ability of police and
law enforcement agencies to respond to new problems and to adapt
police operations to current needs.
To conclude this first week of hearings, we will today call upon four
outstanding police patrolmen from the Kansas City Police Depart-
ment to explain that department's resourceful and imaginative ap-
proach to police work in the 1970's. We would be remiss if we did not
indicate our thanks to the many commissioners, chiefs of police, offi-
(559)
560
cials, and patrolmen who have contributed so much to make this phase
of the hearings successful.
During the course of this very busy week, we have heard from and
are indebted to the police departments of New York City, New Or-
leans, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Chicago. Washington. D.'C.. Detroit,
St. Louis, San Antonio, Dallas, and Kansas City, Mo. The programs
and policies pursued by these police agencies can surely offer encourage-
ment to our citizens and can show the way for other police agencies.
But the street level response to crime is only the first part of the
criminal justice system's responsibility. Next week, we shall consider
another portion of the criminal justice system. From April 14 through
April 19 we will be hearing testimony on "crime in the streets — the re-
duction of juvenile and adult recidivism through new correctional
approaches." During that week, we will be hearing testimony about
new kinds of correctional programs, and about better ways of dealing
with juveniles who are involved in serious delinquency and serious
crime. The reduction of juvenile crime offers the best hope for the
eventual reduction of all crime in the United States. As a priority
matter we must devote massive and sustained attention to those indi-
viduals who early in their lives demonstrate a propensity for com-
mitting antisocial and criminal acts. We have learned long ago that
the correctional systems in this Nation are ineffective when they are
asked to "correct" a criminal who has already reached the mid-point
in his criminal career.
We must, therefore, strengthen our resolve to bring to bear as many
financial and personnel resources as necessary to attack criminality
before it becomes an established lifestyle. The many professional
specialists who will testify next week will describe in detail new ap-
proaches and new ideas in rehabilitating young delinquents. We are
convinced that a sound way to deal with crime is to utilize our con-
siderable correctional and social service resources when our young
men and women first indicate that they are potential delinquents.
Finally, from May 1 through May 8, our hearings will concentrate
on prosecution and court programs which offer the means to expedite
criminal cases in our courts. These hearings then will cover the entire
criminal justice process: they are practical hearings in that they are
designed to demonstrate that many police, court, and correctional
agencies are attempting to improve the administration of justice,
thereby making our streets safer for all Americans.
It is now my pleasure to introduce one of our most distinguished,
most faithful, and helpful members of this committee, a man who
is deeply interested in the problem of crime in this country, and
is as dedicated as any man in the Congress, or the country, in trying
to do something about it. That man is my distinguished colleague
and friend, Hon. Larry Winn.
I ask him if he will be kind enough to present our witnesses this
morning.
Mr. Winn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't represent Kansas City, Mo., although I had the privilege of
being bom in Kansas City, Mo. But when I went to the University
of Kansas, I stayed in the State of Kansas and have the privilege of
representing the Third Congressional District of Kansas now.
561
I am sorry our colleague, Mr. Boiling, cannot be here this morning.
He said he would try to make every effort to be here, and I know
that you gentlemen appreciate the fact that all of the Membere of
Congress have busy schedules. Mr. Boiling hopes he can make it before
you leave the hearing room this morning.
It is my pleasure and privilege, Mr. Chairman, to introduce to the
committee and to you as the chairman, five members of the Kansas
City, Mo., Police l3epai-tment.
Mr. Thomas J. Sweeney, who is a consultant to the Kansas City,
Mo., Police Department, four young patrolmen : Barrel W. Stephens,
James G. Post, Charles E. Brown, and James Head.
I would like at this time, Mr. Chairman, if I may, have the privilege
of reading a letter addressed to you.
Chairman Pepper. Glad to have you do that.
Mr. Winn. The letter is from a friend of mine, Mr. Clarence M.
Kelley, chief of police in Kansas City, Mo. I might say that because
of the setup in the Kansas City area, all of the police departments
there in Wyandotte and Johnson Counties which I represent, and in
Jackson County, and in Kansas City, Mo., work together very closely
in an arrangement that does not come under the purview of this com-
mittee, but which we call the metro squad, because we have, as you
well know, Mr. Chairman, a State line that divides us.
This letter to you from Chief Kelley reads as follows :
Dear Mr. Pepper : We are honored to be one of the select group of law enforce-
ment agencies invited to appear before your committee to discuss innovative
crime control strategies. We welcome this opportunity to present our accom-
plishments and we stand prepared to assist your committee in any way possible.
I have chosen to send five young men as our representatives. Four are patrol-
men, the fifth is a civilian. These men are representative of the large number
of our personnel who have been instrumental in designing and implementing
innovative programs in Kansas City. They personify the type of department we
are striving to build.
In any department the support of such men is necessary if the implementation
of change is to be successful. Their participation in management helps to gain
that support. They have, in addition, an enormous contribution to make. These
men in fact represent sources of talent that have been ignored all too long by
police administrators. They know intimately the problems currently facing our
per-sonnel on the street. They attack problems with an openness and a vigor
not characteristic of police administrators. The programs they present to you
today give testimony to their abilities. They have visions of law enforcement
in the future and they may very well be the police administrators of tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Clarence M. Kelley,
Chief of Police.
Kansas City, Mo.
Mr. Winn. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is obvious by the ages of
these young men, and some of the hearings we had earlier in the
week, that we do have a new, innovative idea in police administra-
tion of using younger and younger men. I know you and I are both
in agreement on that and we are very pleased to see young men in
police administrative work.
Without further ado I would like to introduce to the committee
Mr. Tom Sweeney.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much, Mr. Winn.
562
Mr. Sweeney, we are glad to have you and the other gentlemen
with you, and we appreciate the letter from the distinguished chief
of police of Kansas City, Mo. Please convey our thanks to him.
Mr. Lynch, you may proceed.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I suppose the key phrase
for describing the Kansas City Police Department would have to be
"participatory management." Each of that department's four major
patrol divisions has a task force comprised of four to six men, mostly
patrolmen. These task forces are responsible for deciding which proj-
ects within their respective areas of responsibility could best be under-
taken by their division.
They are further responsible for implementing those projects. In
effect, each task force operates as a "think tank'' and it uses front-line,
street-level patrolmen rather than departmental administrators or
theorists who are far removed from crime in the streets.
Mr. Sweeney, I wonder if at this time you could briefly describe
how the department is organized, what the task forces do, and then
at that time, I wonder if you would call on the patrolmen with you
this morning to describe what major projects will be implemented
by them in their respective areas of Kansas City.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. SWEENEY, TASK FORCE PROGRAMS
COORDINATOR, POLICE DEPARTMENT, KANSAS CITY, MO. ; ACCOM-
PANIED BY DARREL W. STEPHENS, JAMES POST, CHARLES E.
BROWN, AND JAMES HEAD, PATROLMEN
Mr. Sweeney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just as a prefatory remark I would like to indicate that Kansas City
has, for the fourth straight year, experienced a declining crime rate.
Since 1970, crime in Kansas City has declined by 23.8 percent. We
would like to believe that decline is partly due to our efforts.
We have, however, some problems in identifying the precise contri-
butions that the various innovations we have introduced have effected.
The department has been characterized by change and introduction of
new programs since Chief Kelly arrived 11 years ago. In addition to
the programs we will talk about this morning, I should note Kansas
City has increased its police force by 350 men in the past 2 years.
It has a modern crime lab, evidence technicians, a regional academy,
and presently is the center for a national street lighting experiment.
In addition to measuring the impact, or trying to assess the impact
of program innovations, we are faced with two realities : One is that
crime is declining in a large number of cities ; and second, there appear
to be some social factors, we are not able to put our fingers on, that are
also effecting the decline in crime. Additionally, the state-of-the-art in
police work in measuring effectiveness is very, very poor.
I would like to take just a minute to read two brief quotes from the
report prepared by the Rand Corp. to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development in 1970. I think this provides some background
for much of what we will talk about which we are doing in Kansas
City.
563
We believe there are significant knowledge gaps which make it impossible to
allocate as rationally as should be, the more than $1 billion devoted annually to
police patrol programs. Because of these knowledge gaps, police administrators
currently must plan, principally in terms of input measures (such as the number
of patrolmen on the street or the number of patrol hours), although what they
are trying to effect are output measures of police effectiveness, such as true crime
rates, apprehension rates, and the speed and quality of service in response to calls
for services. These knowledge gaps are one of the most important factors limiting
the development of effective aids to police patrol decisionmaking.
That same report goes on to indicate —
In short, between one-third and one-half of all police time is devoted to pre-
ventive patrol and the police cannot specify with confidence what effect it has on
crime or criminal apprehension. In such a situation, police administrators cannot
know resources are being allocated effectively. Analytic and experimental studies
are needed and could result in very substantial changes and improvements in the
use of police manpower.
That, as I said, is a basis for much of what we are doing in Kansas
City. We think our approach is somewhat unique in law enforcement
agencies in tliat it is probably the most systematic and perhaps the first
effort to introduce participatory management, using field patrolmen
in the design of patrol strategies. We also believe it is the first time in
the history of this country, fairly well controlled, fairly scientific
patrol experiments have been conducted by a police agency.
Those experiments test many of the underlying assumptions of
police work. We would like to talk this morning, very quickly, as we
go tlirough the discussion of the task force projects and the research
we are presently engaged in, about the effectiveness of patrol activities
and also about the problems we face.
The problems we face include police community relations, crime,
et cetera.
We would like to talk about some of our technological innovations,
our helicopters, our computers, and certain efforts we are making to
professionalize our police personnel because we firmly believe the
most important resource we have is our men on the street. They exercise
enormous discretion and they are the key individuals in law enforce-
ment. We would like to talk about some efforts we are undertaking to
try to understand and improve our interaction with the citizens.
First, in response to Mr. Lynch's question, I will talk about the
developmental process. In October of 1971, Chief Kelley established
four task forces in the four major patrol divisions of the department.
There is one for each of our three geographical divisions— northeast,
central, and south patrol. The fourth task force is in our special opera-
tions division, which includes the tactical unit.
The composition was primarily field patrolman, the commanding
officer of that division and usually one representative of the super-
visors. They were given a mandate by Chief Kelley to identify more
effective and responsive patrol strategies. The constraints placed on
these individuals, basically, were that they had to maintain commit-
ments made publicly as to the allocation of police personnel and that
they had to undertake competent analysis of the problems and solu-
tions and be prepared to defend those solutions when they presented
them to Chief Kelley. But, basically, he entrusted to these men the
authority to design patrol strategies.
564
The process was characterized by a conflict of ideas. For those of
us who had been around police circles, we know generally there is a
tendency not to introduce conflict of ideas, but rather maintain the
status quo. Some of our discussions became quite heated, and we had
occasions when individuals threw books at one another. But gen-
erally there was a sincere attempt to understand the problems that we
faced, to get out different points of view and identify strategies.
We were provided support for this effort by the Police Founda-
tion, and what is rather unique about that support is that the Police
Foundation put a good deal of money, about $60,000, into Kansas
City for developmental work and to support the activities of the
task forces without any commitment or understanding of what the
outcomes of those projects might be.
From our point of view, that is unique to funding agencies. Basi-
cally, we have had several outcomes with which we are rather happy.
First, obviously, are our four patrol programs with their 13 separate
components. We have had numerous outcomes, and perhaps the
most significant is the demonstration of competence on the part of
field patrolmen to design and administer projects. There is a desire
among our men to remain in patrol and this, again, is uncharacteristic.
We have had men turn down transfers to specialized units such as
detective and tactical units. There is a growing interest on the part
of our personnel to understand problems and to acquire knowledge
through research. Basically, there is an enthusiasm for change in the
department.
I would like to turn the platform at the moment over to Patrolman
James Head. James is going to talk about one of our primary efforts
at the present time to analyze aggravated assaults and homicide.
This, I think, is characteristic of an approach we are going to be
taking in the future to cut apart all of the problems we face in de-
veloping innovative solutions.
Statement of James Head
Mr. Head. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I am from the Northeast Patrol Division, Kansas
City, Mo., Police Department. Wliat I would like to tell you about this
morning is a new project our task force has undertaken. It is dedi-
cated to the prevention of crimes of violence or investigating the
possibility of reducing the same.
Our experience has been that posing the question of preventing
crimes of violence, particularly those surrounded by environments
of closures, acquaintance, and emotion, usually elicits responses that
such events are nonpreventable. These responses appear to be pred-
icated on the above situational elements which imply a spontaneity
and privacy surrounding such acts, thus precluding any external
control mechanism — such as the police — from being present in a
preventive capacity.
We certainly do not take issue with statements regarding the in-
ability of the police to be present in even a minority of such violent
situations, but we have difficulty concluding from this that crimes of
this nature are nonpreventable and that the police are. in effect, power-
less to deal with them before the fact.
565
The data gathered for this study is from the years of 1970 and 1971.
The data indudes homicides and aggravated assaults for those years.
They further substantiate the findings of several previous studied
that a large portion of homicides and aggravated assaults occur dur-
ing the course of domestic disturbances.
For purposes of this study, each homicide and aggravated assault
was placed into one of three categories — nondisturbance, nondomestic
disturbance, and domestic disturbance.
This data re\eals that about half of the homicides occurred in dis-
turbance situations. From a randomly selected sample of 500 aggra-
vated assaults in each of the 2 years mentioned, with a confidence level
of 99 percent, it was discovered about two-thirds of the aggravated
assaults occurred in disturbance situations.
Dividing the disturbance-related category into two separate cate-
gories, domestic and nondomestic disturbances, it was revealed approx-
imately one-third of the total homicides and aggravated assaults
involved a domestic disturbance. This indicates that a sizable portion
of the homicides and aggravated assaults occur in disturbances, partic-
ularly those of the domestic definition.
This appears to support the idea that the violent characteristics of
a person are manifested in a disturbance situation, thus tending to
support the hypothesis that police officers have contact with poten-
tially violent offenders in these situations.
Mr. Chairman, I have statistics to support this from the years 1970
and 1971. In 1970, we had 122 total homicides in Kansas City. Of these
homicides 59 took place in a disturbance environment. Of the 59, 34
took place in a domestic disturbance. In 1971, we had a total of 113
homicides in Kansas City, 58 of which were disturbance homicides.
Chairman Pepper. What do you mean, Mr. Head, by a "disturbance
homicide?"
Mr. Head. Let me define a disturbance. This is commonly known
in police circles as a situation, a disturbance of the peace of some party
in which the police are called to intervene and preserve the peace. This
is a disturbance.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you.
Mr. Head. Of the total 113 homicides in 1971, 58 were disturbance
homicides and 45 of these 58, or 40 percent, were in a domestic dis-
turbance situation.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Head, if I might interject one question. In the
domestic disturbances you are talking about, did most of those occur
indoors ; inside some premises ?
Mr. Head. Yes, sir, normally. A domestic disturbance, for purposes
of definition, results from a disturbance which occure in or within
close proximity to a residence where the resident is directly involved
in the disturbance, or which is responsible for the presence of one or
more of the j)ersons involved.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
Mr. Winn. Mr. Head, do you have any figures for 1972 ? You gave
us 1970 and 1971.
Mr. Head. No, sir; I don't.
Mr. Winn. You don't have the 1972 figures yet?
Mr Head. No, sir.
Mr. Winn. Do you think they are down ?
566
Mr. Sweeney. Our homicide rate is down slightly. We believe basi-
cally the percentages seem to be holding pretty consistent from year
to year so far as what proportion are disturbance related and non-
disturbance, and what proportion domestic we have not as yet deter-
mined. Approximately 25 percent are involved in domestic disturbance.
Mr. Winn. I was talking about the whole total of homicides. You
gave us 122 in 1970 and 113 in 1971, which is a small decrease. I was
wondering if you had anything for 1972.
Mr. Sweeney. Seventy-one homicides in 1972.
Mr. Winn. So it is down pretty good.
Mr. Sweeney. Down 31.1 percent.
Mr. Winn. Thank you.
Mr. Head. To continue, the aggravated assault rates for 1970 and
1971. In 1970 statistics, we studied 500 aggravated assaults. Of the 500
studied, 312 were disturbance-aggravated assaults. A total of 31 per-
cent, or 155 of these disturbance-aggravated assaults, were domestic-
disturbance related.
Mr. Lynch. Would you define, in Kansas City police terms, what
aggravated assault is ?
Mr. Head. An aggravated assault is an assault on another person
with a weajx)n. It can be a gun, a knife, or club.
Mr. Sweeney. Maybe I oan anticipate Mr. Winn's next question and
indicate aggravated assaults have gone up 8.6 percent, and nonaggra-
vated, up 40.3 percent.
Mr. Head. Out of the total of 500 aggravated assaults in 1971 for
the study, 334, or 67 percent, were disturbance-aggravated assaults;
161 of the 334 were domestic disturbance.
To further establish contact between police officere and potential vio-
lent offenders, the arrest records of victims and suspects involved in
domestic disturbance homicides and aggravated assaults were exam-
ined. The data shows that in about one-third of the homicides and
aggra\^ted assaults, either the victim or the suspect had an arrest for
a disturbance in the 2 years prior to the actual commitment of the
crime.
Even more impressive is that these figures pertain only to arrests.
It is known that many disturbance situations
Chairman Pepper. What percentage did you say had an arrest in
the previous 2-year period ?
Mr. Head. In one-third of the homicides and aggravated assaults,
either the victim or the suspect had a prior arrest.
Mr. Winn. In a 2-year period ?
Mr. Head. In a 2-year period prior to the situation.
Chairman Pepper. Did you go beyond the 2-year period to see how
many others had had previous arrest records ?
Mr. Head. No, sir. We were aiming mainly at the assault or the
homicide and we were trying to consolidate the study.
Chairman Pepper. We had a very interesting series of witnesses
here yesterday afternoon from the Dallas Police Department. They
made a thorough study of recidivism in Dallas and it is very interest-
ing what they found. You found it with respect to these people for a
2-year period and they carried it back further, went into different age
groups and the like. It would be of interest to you to see that Dallas
report. They will be glad to send it to you.
567
Mr. Head. Even more impressive is that these figures pertain only
to arrests, for it is known that many disturbance situations do not
result in an arrest. Thus, it can be assumed that even a higher percent-
age of victims and suspects have actually been involved in a disturb-
ance situation and Iuxac had contact with the police prior to their
involvement in homicide or aggravated assault.
My figures for arrest rates on liomicides for 1970 indicate that we
had 34 disturbance-related homicides. Of these 34, 32 percent, or 11,
of either the victims or the suspects, had a disturbance or an assault
arrest within the previous 2 years.
In the 1971 study, for arrest rates, the domestic disturbance homi-
cides, we had 45, and in 10 of these the suspect or the victims had had
an arrest for disturbance within the prior 2 years.
In 1970 we had 155, disturbance-related aggravated assaults, 58 of
which the victim or the suspect had an arrest for disturbance or as-
sault within the previous 2 years.
In 1971 we had 161 disturbance-related aggravated assaults and in
59 of these, or 37 percent, the victim or suspect had been arrested in
the previous 2 years.
We went a step further in Kansas City and tried to check the
addresses where the violent crimes occurred. We found tliat contact
between police officers and potential violent offenders, to a certain
degree, has been established through the arrest records of victims and
suspects of homicides and aggravated assaults. In order to determine
the amomit of contact, the addresses of the scenes of the domestic-
disturbance homicides and aggravated assaults in 1970 and 1971 were
checked by computer for service calls made to that address within
the 2-year period prior to the homicide or aggravated assault in
question.
Studies indicate that of the total of domestic disturbance homi-
cides and aggravated assaults for the years 1970 and 1971, an average
of 85 percent of the addresses had disturbance calls within a 2-year
period prior to the homicide or assault in question. On an average,
53.8 percent had four or more disturbance calls during this period.
These addresses include apartments and addresses of persons other
than the victims or suspects. Since some of the homicides or assaults oc-
curred while visiting at a friend's residence, it should be mentioned
that although the probability exists, there is not a definite correla-
tion between the disturbance calls at these addresses and the persons
involved in the homicides and assaults due to a lack of disturbance
name association in the computer. Since an apartment, due to multi-
ple tenants, reduces the probability a person is invohed in previous
disturbance calls these addresses were eliminated from further anal^^ sis.
Mr. Lyxcii. Mr. Head, I wonder if I could interrupt at this point.
It seems you made a very important finding that in 85 percent of
those cases the Kansas City Police Department, if I understand you
correctly, responded to family disturbance or other disturbance calls
in the same building or even in the same apartment unit which e\'entu-
ally became the scene of a serious aggravated assault or a homicide.
Do you. as a matter of course, fill out, even when an arrest is not
made, any kind of field interrogation report or contact report naming
the person involved in a family disturbance situation ?
Mr. Head. No, sir.
95-158— 73— pt. 1 37
568
Mr. Sweeney. One of the things we are trjdng to do is get a profile.
Very few police departments keep that kind of information. Disturb-
ances are handled routinely. We keep crime reporting information but
not disturbance data. We have a hunch we are going to get into that
because we need further background.
Mr. Head's statistics, that he will present, control for multiple
dwellings in which the individuals live and get even stronger. As they
get further into the address of the victims and perpetrators the coitela-
tions are astounding.
Mr. Lynoii. "V'^^iich suggest that additional law enforcement action
of some kind may well be necessary. Is that the inference you draw ?
Mr. Sweeney. Yes.
]\lr. Lynch. Do you g-ive members of your northeast task force
special training in responding to family disturbance calls?
INIr. Head. Not at this time. We are still involved with defining the
problem.
Mr. Lynch. I would commend to your attention a family disturbance
pilot program in the District of Columbia. The police administrator
was brought from the New York City Police Depaitment, a gentleman
who gave specialized training in a controlled, year-long experiment,
and there were no injuries or fatalities to policemen in more than 1,000
calls.
One of the highest causes of police fatalities in major urban areas
is response to family disturbance calls. We just lost a young Wash-
ington, D.C. policeman who was shot in the stomach with a shotgun
while trying to help a family out of their problems.
]Mr. Saveeney. I am aware of that study. Basically, the methodology
was not tremendously strong because we don't know what the ratio
of police officer assaults and disturbance calls is. We admit it is an area
in which we get into trouble. It is interesting to note that that particu-
lar individual is now back doing an analysis of the problem and basi-
cally he wants to go back and take a very hard look at what is involved
in disturbances. Getting back to where we are right now, we still have
a long way to go. But I think you hit right on where we are heading
in some way, shape, or form.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Would you proceed, Mr. Head ?
Mr. Head. To eliminate the possibility that apartments were the
addresses of the calls, and the people involved in the disturbance calls
were not those actually at the address where the assault or homicide
took place, these addresses were eliminated. The results indicates that
an average of 82.4 percent of the addresses had previous disturbance
calls, with an average of 43.3 percent with five or more disturbance
calls in the 2 years prior to the act,
Mr. Winn. Wliat you are saying, then, if you don't keep the names
on record, at least at the present time, then what this survey does is
lielp you spot the trouble areas. Is that true ?
INir. Head. Yes, sir.
Mr. Winn. You mean general areas. I think I know what you are
finding out in your statistics, but if you don't keep names then you
can't go back and check on the same continuous troublemakers as far
as names are concerned, so you must be checking on areas.
Mr. Head. We are checking on names and addresses, sir. At this
time we are developing information and statistics to define the prob-
569
lem, to point out the fact that we do have contact with these people
prior to their committing a serious crime, the crime of violence. There
is going to be just a whale of a lot of research in^^olved in this study.
The study, as we envision it, should cover some If) months. At the
present time, I think they have been on this for about G Aveeks.
Mr. AViNN. I know you are in the early stages of this. Our advance
.information — and I should have brought that out in my intro-
ductory remarks — is that you are, at this earh' stage, seeing a pattern.
I know the northeast area in general. In my opinion, it is a low-
income area.
Mr. Head. The majority of the assaults and homicides, as nationally,
do occur in the lower socioeconomic class. However, this study covers
the entire city. It is not restricted to northeast.
^Ir. Winn. I think we were of the opinion this part 30U were
referring to was northeast; but this is the whole city?
Mr. Head. The northeast task force is doing the study, but the study
itself covers the entire city.
Mr. Winn. And you include the southern area, that includes the
higher income area ?
Mr. Head. Yes. And the northern area.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Head, as you proceed collecting additional data, it
seems to me what you are saying that the inference becomes stronger
that persons finally involved in serious aggravated assaults and
homicides have, in fact, been telegraphing that for quite a period of
time.
Mr. Head. That is true. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. Would you proceed.
Mr. Head. At this point in time we have talked to different doctors
and we really can't lind two that will agree on certain points about
people. So you can see the dilemma we are faced with. We are trying
to develop a program to identify and possibly treat these potential
suspects or participants in violent crimes.
At the present time we have difficulty finding two doctors who can
identify or agree on a specific individual.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me. Have you gone into the matter
enough to begin to identify certain general causes or general charac-
teristics of those who are found to commit these crimes ?
Mr. Head. No, sir ; not at this point.
Chairman Pepper. Have you made any determination as to the age
groups, generally, of the ones who commit the crime?
Mr. Head. No.
Mr. Sweeney. Sir, the task force has outlined a study program and
they are right now entering the study phase that relates to going back
and looking at the offender characteristics, going back and talking to
both the victims and perpetrators. As Jim indicated, it will probably
be several more months before they even complete that phase.
Basically, what we are presenting is more of a framework of how
we are analj'zing the problem ; and we do find very definite correlations
and we do have contact with these people.
Chairman Pepper. AVlien you do find the facts about these indi-
viduals who have been guilty of recidivism and the commission of
crime you will naturally have to have the cooperation of other depart-
ments of Government in order to assist these people.
570
Mr. Head. Yes, sir.
Chairman Pepper. Do you ]iave access to such facilities and person-
nel in your city or State ?
Mr. PIead. We do have several referral agencies in Kansas City, Mo.
However, at this time we don't have a program designed. We are still
identifying the problem. We are still in the very basic stages. We may
reach a point where we can have a profile to identify potential suspects
or potential criminals. This would aid us in indicating treatment or
referral to a doctor, and so forth.
However, at this point, it is still too early to define just 'what we are
going to do, w^hen we do end the study.
Mr. Lynch. This kind of data will enable you to make concrete rec-
ommendations as to statistical inferences that will, hopefully, be in-
escapable and therefore you can make specific recommendations as to
what can or what ought to be done. I take it that is the cliief intent,
not to let this study die as an academic document, but be an action
kind of study so you may make recommendations for preventing these
kinds of crimes.
Mr. Head. Yes. This is very true. We fool tliat while we are under-
taking the study covering some 14 months, we realize at the end of
the study we may decide indeed the police are doing the best thing
they can right now and there is no better thing we could be doing.
This is a possibility, and we haven't ruled this out, but it is too darned
early at this point to make a determination or to try to say w^hat we
are going to do when 'we finish it.
Mr. Lynch. But this kind of study could very well be referred to the
social service and mental health agencies and other agencies in the
city; is that right?
Mr. Sweeney. Yes. Chief Kelley has a strong interest in this. The
only reason we have not as yet involved the agencies to define the prob-
lem and some related solutions is it is pretty hard to identify the rele-
vant ones.
Mr. Winn. In vour studies, are you going back to see how many
of these individuals were involved in juvenile delinquency crimes, too,
or would that be a later part of your study ?
jMr. Head. There are no plans at this time to go into that phase.
Mr. Winn. Won't some of that information show^ up if you are in
contact with those people that have committed these crimes and you
are interviewing these indi^'iduals; won't the fact they start-ed and
first got into trouble at the age of 15 or 16, whatever it might have
been, show up in your interviews ?
Mv. Head. This could be in the interviews. However, when you
speak of juveniles, you speak of an entirely different problem. Our
records on juveniles are restricted.
Mr. Winn. No, I am afraid you missed my i:)oint. I mean when
you are interviewing the adults.
Mv. Head. Yes, sir. That is what I said.
Mr. Winn. Criminals now. I am sure some of the other police de-
partments have already incorporated this information in their records.
Tt shows these people have been committing crimes since tho}^ were
juveniles, clear back to lo, 14, 15 years old. I am sure when you are
interviewing these people that, even almost accidentally, a youiig man
is going to say, "Yes, I first stole a bicycle when I was 13."
571
Mr. Head. I am certain these results may turn up in intcrvicAvs,
but as I say, just for the record, we don't have tluit capability.
Mr. Wixx. Thank you.
Chairman rEiTEK.'Followino- what ]Mr. ^^'inn has said, I would
stronoly su<rgest that you do include in your iiujuiry the past history,
particularly the youthful history, of that individual. We have con-
siderable evid(Mice that a large' part of the adult criminal group
started their criminal activities in their teens.
That constitutes a problem and a challenge to people who arc trying
to do something about criuie.
^fr. Sweeney. We are faced with the problem of also identifying
the whole myriad of disturbances we run into. It is quite possible
researching disturbances may \\aye some l)eneficial effects and keep
homicides from occurring in certain situations. But looking down the
road, we have projected in our new computer systems that we will
maintain nuich more extensive information on disturbances; and they
are likely to include the background characteristics and patterns of
interactions and problems.
But exactly what the ekMuents of that profile are, or what the
significant aspects of looking at an individual are, we can't say at this
time.
Mr. Head. As I said, we eliminated the apartment addresses. We
also eliminated the addresses that were residences of persons otiier
than the victims or suspects of the homicides and assaults in the study.
This increased the probability that the disturbance calls at the remain-
ing addresses would have involved the victims and suspects of those
homicides aiul assaults. The results indicated an average of 88.2 per-
cent of the remaining addresses had previous disturbance calls and an
average of 45.9 percent had five or more disturbance calls.
This data indicates that tlie scenes of the domestically defined h.omi-
cides and aggravated assaults, even though the addresses are not nec-
essarily those of the victims and suspects, have a high probability as
disturbance environments and those contain a high potential for
violence.
By elimination of apartments and addresses of persons other than
the Victims and suspects, the data indicates a high probability that
the victims and suspects have been involved in previous disturbances,
thus demonstrating violence potential in previous police contact.
As I say, gentlemen, at this point, I can quote you figures on an-ests,
on addresses, and so forth, of \ictims and scenes of assaults and homi-
cides in Kansas City, but at this point all I can say is we are defining
the pi'oblem and we liope to come up with an answer to it.
Mr. Lyxctt. Mr. TTead. do you have restrictions on the kinds of
people who may purchase firearms in Kansas City?
Mr. Head. In order to i)urchase a firearm a person must first obtain
a i)ermit.
Mr. Lyxcii. And the criteria for that is what?
Mr. Head. They have to go to the sherifl'"s department.
Mr. Lyncit. Are people with felony i-ecoi-ds, mental disturbances,
dis(|ualified ?
^Ir. Head. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lyxcii. I assume a number of these family disturbances result-
in£r in homicides are hanchrun matters. It would seem to me if vou
572
can develop an accurate profile based on police contacts, field inteiTO-
gation reports, and history of violence potential, that that might be
one additional source that your legislati\'e body might wish to look
into in restricting the ability to purchase handguns or other weapons
designed to do great bodily harm. It certainly wouldn't hurt looking
into that possibility after your study is concluded.
Mr. Head. Yes, this is true. However, a large portion of the homi-
cides and aggravated assaults are committed with rifle and shotguns,
because they ai-e in the home.
Mr. Lynch. It wouldn't hurt to look into that, either, I suppose.
Mr. WiNisT. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to point
out — I don't want you to be misled by the fact that they liave tlie
registration and everything — we still have the same problems we
do in most cities. The loan sharks, come o\-er to tlio Kansas side and
get guns, and go back and forth. We still have an element of the
underworld thei-e that sup]7lies some of these weapons.
Mr. Head. Most of the weapons, the Saturday night specials, as
so described, aren't purcliased through legitimate means in the first
place. That is part of the pi-oblem.
INIr. Lynch. As you do this study, what would you indicate to
tlie committee, in your judgment, is the study's prime area of short-
term law enforcement payoff, police payoiT? How will you use the
results from the point of view, sim])ly as a law enforcement agency?
Mr. Head. Hopefully, at the conclusion of the study, we will be
able to identify potential participants in violent crimes and thus
reduce, or have some effect on, the total number of violent ci'imes.
Mr. Lynch. How? That is what I am interested in finding out.
What hnplications would it have for you if you were a task force
commander? What action will you take that you cannot now take?
Would you put these people under surveillance, for instance?
Mr. Head. It is too early at this time to attempt to define it.
Mr. Sweeney. We thinlc there are too many peo]de in this country
who have jumped to the solution to that pi'oblem before they bothered
to look at the problem. We find that is partly our reaction to disturb-
ance intervention programs nationv/ide. We are in the process of look-
ing at what has been proposed up to now that does relate to what
seems to be the critical aspects of these disturbances. It is possible the
officers may be trained to handle them.
It is also possible to use more intensive referral, and we even talked
about the possibility of individuals professionally trained, working
for the police department, but riding in areas of high disturbances
and handling the calls themselves.
There are some possibilities, but it is very, very early and one of the
feelings — as I said, is there are certain unique features of Kansas
City — is that there is no necessity to impose a solution before we have
defined the problem.
By the same token, if Jim is done, I would like to keep it moving.
There are about 10 or 15 components we woidd like to cover.
Officer Brown is involved in a study of patrol activity at the present
time. It is the first major patrol experiment of its kind in the country
and it has attracted national attention. The national institute is
presently planning to replicate it in two other cities. The amazing
thing is that it was designed by patrolmen. It comes 43 years after the
573
first call for its implementation, and it is rather interesting to note,
since Kansas City designed it, that San Diego, G months later, de-
signed a parallel kind of study.
Statement of Charles Brown
Mr. Bkown. Thank you, Tom.
The south patrol division task force Avas initiated in October of
1071. At that time, Ave began to identify the problems within our divi-
sion, as well as conduct a search to determine what information was
currently available on policing. As Tom mentioned, we soon dis-
covered there was a lack of empirical data on the literature on police,
particularly concerning preventive patrol. And by "preventive patrol,"
we mean the visibility of police, marked police cars, men in uniform.
In fact, we found that the contents of the majority of available
police literature does involve theory, and theory only. Thus, prior to
starting any new^ project, we felt we should first try to develop the
basic knowledge on which to base our future patrol strategies.
We began by asking three very fundamental questions: What do
patrolmen do ; how much time do they spend on the various activities
they perform; how effective is the time spent on preventive patrol,
which amounts to approximately 35 percent of the patrol officer's time
in Kansas City.
To answer these three questions we developed two research projects.
The first is the activity analysis project. This project began in March
of 1972. By using a specially designed activity sheet, which requires
the officers to account for every minute of their tour of duty, we
sought to identify all of the various activities performed by patrol-
men and the amount of time they spent on them. This special activity
sheet has been, and is being, used on a random basis.
The second project is known as the proactive-reactive patrol de-
ployment experiment. It began on July 19, 1972. The purpose of this
experiment is to determine the effectiveness of preventive patrol, using
such indicators as crime statistics, citizen perception, satisfaction with
police service, fear of victimization, and the police officer's perception
of his job.
A 15-beat area encompassing the entire socioeconomic spectrum of
the community w^as chosen as the experimental area. In this 15-beat
area, 5 beats ai-e proactive, which means a high level of aggressive pre-
ventive ]:)atrol ; 5 beats are reactive, w^here the officers do not enter this
1 )eat except as a result of a call for service from a citizen ; and 5 beats
are controlled, where the same levels of patrol are provided as previous
ro the experiment.
I have here a mock deployment, which will give you an idea of
how this may look and the way it is designed. These beats were inter-
spersed amongst each other, where you would have "control" next to a
"reactive" and "proactive."
The evaluation of the experiment consists of six key elements. I
M-ould like to make a comment about evaluation. This is what we at
South felt perhaps was one of the reasons for the failure of many
experiments throughout the country, or even the success of them — and
when you go to other departments or other sources of information, and
vou are unable to find out what either caused the failure or made them
574
a success was the very lack of evaluation — and we felt in order to
really determine effectiveness of our preventive patrol we should have
a very extensive, and as it turned out, very complicated system of
evaluation.
The first element is crime monitoring. Crime is being monitored,
beat by beat, on a weekly basis. We can make comparisons to the pre-
vious week, previous month, and previous time period last year. His-
torically, data, also beat by beat, is being updated for the past 3 years.
This is for the purpose of quantifying seasonality and transient
crime.
At the end of the experiment, analvtical comparisons for periods
prior to and during the experiment will be made, as well as between
the three experimental patrol strategies.
The second element is the community survey. A citizens' survey in-
strument was designed whereby we would be able to obtain and measure
the citizen's satisfaction and perception of police, fear of victimiza-
tion, actual victimization rate, prior contact with police, and various
demographic factors.
Of these surveys, 1,200 were conducted in the experimental area
prior to the start of the experiment. Tlie survey will a^ain be repeated
at the end of the experiment, which is October of this year, for tlie
development of comparative data.
The third element is the business survey of approximatelv 100
businesses in the experimental area. This survey was also conducted
prior to the experiment, and addresses the same general questions as the
community survey. It will be repeated at the end of the experiment and
utilized for analytic comparisons.
The fourth element of the evaluation effort is called the observer
]:)rogram. This involves the use of three civilians and one police of-
ficer, who ride with the beat officers in the experimental area. At tlie
end of each ride, they debrief, and dictate an extensive description of
what occurred during that ride.
With this data, we will be able to document, as never before, what
a police officer does, how lie does it, why he does it, the range of police
styles, and the effect of the different styles on the citizens in a wide
variety of situations.
The fifth element of our evaluation is the police-citizen encounter
survey, which also involves the use of four observers. This effort in-
volves what we feel to be a rather unique concept. It is the gathering
of information about police-citizen contacts in three perspectives.
These are the views of the police officer, the view of the citizen, and
the view of the observer. When certain types of contacts are made be-
tween the police and citizens the officer involved and the observer wit-
nessing the encounter complete a questionnaire. Within a 48-hour pe-
riod a professional interviewer from our survey research team makes
contact with the citizens and asks them to complete a questionnaire.
The information obtained from the encounter survey includes a
description of what was said and done by whom, attitude, satisfaction,
and demographic data concerning the citizen. This portion of the ex-
periment is still in pretest phases.
The sixth element of the experiment is a "response time" survey.
From it we will determine levels of citizen satisfaction along with
575
police response times. The response times and citizen satisfaction will
1)0 quantified in three Avays.
First, the fonr observers will note the various time components
which make up response time. Second, police dispatcher, telephoiic
and radio tapes will be monitored. F'inally, a mail survey will be di-
rected to citizens who have initiated calls for police service. This three-
way comparison will provide the complete description of all time ele-
ments contained in total response time as it relates to citizen satis-
faction.
The final element of our project consists of effoi'ts to obtain support-
i]io- data for the previously mentioned elements. Data relating to traffic
patterns, accident rates, citizen complaints against police officers,
criminal arrests, and weather, will be obtained for their inclusion in
an overall evaluation and analysis of the experiment.
Mr. Lyxch. Mr. Brown, all I can say is "wow." I wonder if and
when you fellows finish the job at the police department you would
like to turn your considerable talents to other criminal justice agen-
cies. I wish there were 300 police administrators sitting in tlie audi-
ence this morning to hear that pi'esentation. I think it is quite remark-
able.
Thank you.
Mr. Sweeney. Charlie just mentioned the analysis of response time
as it relates to citizen satisfaction. We presently have on the drawing
board a very detailed analysis of response time as it affects outcome
in terms of apprehension, witness availability, victim injury, and we
will again assess the issue of citizen satisfaction.
As I said, it is on the drawing board and we will be presenting that
to a funding agency within a few weeks. Our analysis indicates we
don't detect very much crime. We are doing a very detailed analysis
of what we prevent and we now, fortunately, are going to take a very
hard look at what portion of crime is even amenable to rapid response
bv police.
This is a very basic question which Ave talked about at the national
institute.
Chairman Pepper. What is the basic question?
Mr. Sweexey. What portion of crime is i-eported to the police within
close proximity to time of occurrence that makes police response a
valid strategy? Yet that is one of the crime solutions people around
the country are emphasizing, and we wonder if we may be putting
a lot of eggs in the basket that has no payoff at all.
We know we have to respond rapidly to emergencies
]Mr. Lyxcii. There are several programs around the comitry. are
there not, which have spent considerable amounts of money, computer
proo-rams, very sophisticated conununication systems, all geared to
getting a policeman to the scene of a major crime within x number
of seconds or mimites. I take it what you are saying is that that is
the cart before the horse; that unless citizens, victims, or observers
report those crimes v.ithin a certain period of time, the other issue
of response time becomes a meaningless issue.
Mr. Saveexey. Yes. It gets back to the issue of not having done a
problem analysis before solutions were proposed.
Mr. Lyxch. Thank you.
576
Mr. Sweeney. We now would like to address some of our technologi-
cal innovations. I would turn it over to Patrolman Post, who will dis-
cuss helicopter patrol, our computer, and its proposed uses.
Statement of James Post
Mr. Post. Mr. Chairman, the first strategy I will discuss is the heli-
copter patrol. This is entitled "Sky ALERT"- — an acronym for Aerial
Lavv Enforcement Response Team — and is one of Kansas City's newest
crime fighting efforts. Sky ALERT utilizes six Hughes Model-300
helicopters.
Each helicopter is equipped with high intensity flood lights that
generate up to 1.2 million candlepower in a beam that will light up
the darkest street or alley. The helicopters are aloft, weather permit-
ting, thioughout the day or night, 7 days a week. Kansas City is a
pioneer in the night use of helicopters for routine patrol.
Sky ALERT is a versatile support tool to ground officers. Yearly,
helicopter officers respond to thousands of incidents, assist in arrests,
detect and report fires, locate occupied stolen automobiles — resulting
often in arrests — and make water rescues. The helicopter is unparal-
leled as an observation platform; roof tops, industrial grounds, rail-
yards, and parks are exposed to aerial scrutiny — 34,805 buildings
searched in 1972 alone.
Sky ALERT provides district patrol an extra dimension and in-
creased effectiveness — 5,550 flight hours of crime prevention patrol
flown during 1972. Helicopter officers cover far more territory, observe
activity invisible to ground units, and easily o^'ertake fleeing vehicles —
74 times in 1 year. As a ground-aerial team, helicopters direct ground
units to the exact location of activity.
Sky ALERT increases officer security. With a rapid response, the
presence of a police helicopter overhead acts as a distinct and positive
deterrent to the possible assault of ground officers by suspects — heli-
copters assisted in 1,738 pedestrian checks during 1972. As a support
vehicle, the helicopter has greatly increased the dimension of effective
police work.
The majority of funds for the Sky ALERT team of six helicopters
and the newly erected 7,100-square-foot heliport have been provided
for by Federal grants. The heliport stands on a 5-acre site of munici-
pally owned land in eastern Kansas City. It provides hangar space
for the six ships, office space for flight crews, an air-conditioned work-
shop for the aircraft mechanics, as well as parts storage area and a
large locker room. The heliport also provides a unique venture for law
enforcement agencies, as many agencies are required to utilize exist-
ing airport facilities.
Sky ALERT flight plan preparation and subsequent evaluation is
conducted by Kansas City's crime and traffic analysis unit. The most
recent evaluation was prepared January 25, 1973, and provides the
following comments regarding Sky ALERT effectiveness:
First, directed helicopter patrol, that is, helicopter patrol which uti-
lizes smaller patrol areas — DPA's — and specific time frames are more
effective than random patrols. Further, helicopter patrol, when prop-
erly directed, is a valuable tool which may result in significant de-
creases in certain types of serious crime.
577
The folloAving crimes were studied diirino; the evaUiation period
and are believed to be the most pi-eveiital^le with the aid of helicopter
patrol : Eesidence burglary, non residence burirlarv; auto theft, armed
robber}', strong-arm robbery, and larceny — purse snatch. Decreases
were noted in all but two of the selected crimes. The two exceptions
were auto theft and larceny — purse snatch.
An important point to note is that while the total known — or re-
ported— crimes in Kansas City decreased 10.6 percent during the last
6 months of 1972 as comi>ared to the same period in 1971, the known
crimes in the DPA's decreased 26.2 percent.
Again, it is important to stress the fact that much is to be learned
about helicopter ]:)atrol and its effects on crime. It is felt with more
time devoted to this study in the future, great strides can be made.
A second area of discussion I would lik'e to present is our computer
system. This is named "ALERT II.'"
Law and order in Kansas City is maintained by the Kansas City,
jNIo., Police Department, the 22d largest police force in the United
States. Comprised of approximately 1.700 personnel, the force yearly
processes 110,000 arrests, in\estigates 40,000 reported offenses, responds
to and records 26,000 vehicle accidents, and answers 405,000 calls for
services. The communications center, operating on seven radio fre-
quencies, originates or responds to 11 million radio transmissions per
year ; an average of one transmission in every 2.7 seconds.
The urgent need to process information with precision and rapidity
influenced the selection of the computer telecommunications system.
The computer system commenced operations in 1968 to meet the
information needs of the officer in the field.
The system was given the acronym "ALERT" — Automated Law
Enforcement Response Team. The computer functions as an invaluable
aid to the officer in the field, and computer teclmicians adjust their
workload to the needs of the police operations system. The computer
system, itself, is said to be a real time system because the information
files reflect "real life" or constant, up-to-date status of wanted pei-sons,
stolen vehicles, and abstract criminal histories.
ALERT serves all regional area law enforcement agencies and
those civil agencies involved in the criminal justice process. A total
of 47 agencies are interfaced with x\LERT, including 26 police depart-
ments, six county sheriffs, the Kansas and Missouri highway patrols,
tlie Kansas City mmiicipal court, the Jackson County prosecuting
attorney, the Jackson County juvenile court, the Kansas City Parole
Office, the Kansas City prosecutor's office, the FBI, the Federal Postal
Inspector, the law enforcement branch of Internal Revenue and the
jNIissouri State Parole Office. At present, 115 data communications
terminals are interfaced into the police computer system.
The police computer is interfaced with MULES — Missouri uniform
law enforcement system — ^and with the FBI computeir — NCIC — in
Washington. These interface systems provide law enforcement agen-
cies in the Kansas City region relay services to the State and National
files concerning all nationally known felonies of wanted persons,
stolen vehicles, stolen property, stocks, and bonds. An average of 5,000
communications are exchanged between the Kansas City police com-
puter and the FBI computer every 24 hours.
578
Utilizing the law enforcement manpower resource allocation sys-
tem— LEMRAS — the department is improving the effectiveness of
current police resources by concentrating the available forces through-
out the 316 square miles of Kansas City. The LEMRAS has shown that
the greatest need for responding to calls for service exists between
11 p.m., Friday night, and 1 a.m., Saturday morning. Therefore, ap-
proximately 65 police units are totally committed to responding to
calls for service with an average of 24 minutes spent on each call.
Studies of calls for service predicted by the LEMRAS compared with
actual occurrences indicate a 95-percent accuracy rate by the compu-
terized system.
Kansas City implemented a computerized police planning system
with the designation of ''Copps." The system is capable of projecting
resource requirements for up to 10 years in advance. The system allows
the department to take an in-depth view of future resource require-
ments measured against projected new or revised programs. Copps
is modern-day management technique to meet expected change, pro-
duce desired change, and to prevent undesired change.
In January 1972, the computer system was renamed ALERT II to
denote the involvement of the system into criminal justice operations.
We have identified 48 specific areas where the computer is used in
efi'ective support of the criminal justice process.
I have these listed in the material we will present to you and I am
happ3^ to present them. These 48 areas include, of course, in-depth
record information, moniker files, the preparation of traiiic reports,
court reports. We even have a 10-day warning notice that automati-
cally goes out to the folks who haven't paid their parking tickets.
Invasion of privacy is a phrase often heard when people debate
the issue of computers. It is a matter of grave concern ; one that law
enforcement is keenly aware of and which professional administra-
tors have vowed would not be violated in the implementation of this
new technology. All matters programed into the computer must be
fully documented and all questions of legitimacy are resolved in favor
of the individual, prior to entry.
Responsiveness to the public it serves has been the goal of police
agencies and computer technology increases that possibility to a de-
gree that challenges the imagination. Rapid response to calls for
service is facilitated by resource allocation systems utilizing the vast
capabilities of the computer for calculating variables in the environ-
ment. Service and responsiveness were the primary considerations in
the design of ALERT, and it is to this end the system is dedicated.
We are now in the process of designing something we rail ALERT
III.
During the first 6 months of 1972, the department conducted ex-
tensive field tests of two brands of mobile field terminals. In an effort
to extend the capabilities of the ALERT II computer svstem to the
field officers, ALERT III is being designed. ALERT III consists of
mobile computer terminals to be placed in each of the department's
field units, providing each officer direct online entry and retrieval
capabilities.
Following are the projected uses of the ALERT III mobile ter-
minals as set forth in a funding proposal.
579
The fii'st of those will be direct-entry repoi-tino-, inchidiiii!: offense
I'cports, field interrogations, disturbance history data, and activity
icpoi-tini!:. It Avill eliminate the bulk of the paperwork our men are
now faced with.
The second area would be criminal subject infonnation available
to the ofiicer in the field, directly to his police car. The first area will
be criminal records. The second area would be suspect generation svs-
tem, to include descri})tion iile, modus operandi file, a moniker file,
Held interrogation system, infoimant contacts, street crime intelli-
gence— to include both sus})ect tracking and associate tracking; 10-31
backgrounds.
In Kansas City, lO-;]! is the designation given to people that pose
a threat to police officers, due to past experience and their past actions.
We also are including fluid prepositioning system, again due to pro-
jected calls-for-service data.
A referral system, available to the man in the police car, including
the problem/resource query, referral qualifications — that is, the case
type and income — contact persons, and service backlog. If the man has
a problem, instead of going to a phone booth, digging out the yellow
]xiges, for example, he can punch directly into the computer the prob-
lem he has, or the type of referral he desires. They will be told the
nearest agency, individual, to contact, and even, hopefully, the back-
log of that specific agency.
The next area will be neighborhood profile/activity planning model.
This information will provide the officer with both cultural and demo-
graphic information, address listings, community resources within his
beat, to include neighborliood organizations, public ser\'ices — schools,
welfare, referral agencies — and even community leaders and contacts.
Also, police activity in the past^crime patterns, calls-for-service
patterns, field interrogation history, special police hazards and secu-
rity systems, police characters and associates, informant contacts, and
even objectives.
Also, floor plan layouts and blueprints of buildings on his beat, should
he receive a call on a burglar alarm or something of this nature.
It will include a field reference system, to include legal reference,
policy reference, procedure reference, and case status.
Mr. Lynch. When will that ALERT III be implemented?
Mr. Post. Tom can probably give you more exact dates as he has
been actively engaged in the preparation of this grant proposal.
]Mr. SwEEXEY. We would project we could have these car terminals
operational approximately 6 months from the time they are funded,
and it ties into the direct entry in criminal intelligence information.
The other systems are projected to be developed over a 5-year period.
Again consistent with the concerns that police departments nationwide
are calling for the in-car terminals, their value would be carefully
evaluated as they are very expensive pieces of merchandise.
Mr. Lynch. How expensive ? What will it cost you to implement it
on a departmentwide basis ?
Mr. Swt:eney. The figures would depend on the number of units.
For the equipment and installation, approximately $1.9 million. You
talk about ??800,000 worth of programing to develop these various
systems which we have outlined. And on top of that, about another
580
$500,000 if you want to get a competent evaluation. I think, because
they are so expensive, competent evaluation is needed.
Mr. Lynch. Something in the neighborhood of $3.2 nlillion would
sufficiently equip your department ?
Mr. Sweeney. That is correct.
Mr. Post. The units are $3,000 ajDiece.
Mr. Sweeney. I guess my personal feeling is that the traditional
uses of in-car terminals, if you will, are probably not cost effective.
Our whole view recognizes the patrolman as the central resource in
the department. Everything is geared to provide information to him
directly.
Mr. Lynch. Are there departments which have units which do
provide them with the things you discussed ; namely, checks, wanted-
car checks ?
Mr. Sweeney. There are other things in here.
Mr. Lynch. Are the departments presently using them for those
purposes ?
Mr. Sweeney. Yes ; I believe there is one in Florida.
Mr. Lynch. There is another in California. Mr. Sweeney, are you
aware of any police department which is planning the extensive use
of an in-car terminal which would provide the kind of information
that Mr. Post has just described ?
Mr. Sweeney. No.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
Mr. Post. We have several other areas. Probably one of the more
significant ones — both Mr, Lynch and the chairman asked questions
earlier of Officer Head — we also would hope to include in the ALERT
III package is a disturbance intervention profile, the first area being
location histories, both prior disturbances by location and the police
action taken at the previous calls for service or area disturbances, the
probable disturbance cause in the past, and tlie probable participants.
The second area would be dealing with individuals and those dis-
turbance-prone individuals, both by phj'sical description, social his-
tory profile, and even to include trigger words and subject words. For
example, if it was found in the past the police officers had been there,
the individuals in question had reacted to certain terms or certain
phrases, these would be entered and possibl}' a red light flash and say,
"Don't use this word," et cetera.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Post, in essence what you are saying is, this would
give a policeman on patrol virtual access to the department's entire file,
at least on all of those situations you have been talking about. Isn't
that accurate ?
Mr. Post. Yes.
Mr. Saveeney. There is certain information quite obviously not
available — intelligence information of various sorts. Because we are
also in the system with the juvenile court, their records are locked
out to us.
Mr, Ly'NCh. But any kind of decisional information required to re-
spond to an immediate situation. This, again, I would like to em-
phasize, is what you call the real time system. When you use that
term, for those of us unfamiliar with computer terminology, what
would that mean, Mr. Sweeney ? "\Ylien an officer punches a button on
581
that in-car terminal how long is he going to have to wait for a
response ?
Mr. Sweeney, l^lie response is almost instantaneous. We use one
sort of version of that now. We get address calls. The computer will
do a random search in a two-block area around that address and indi-
cate if there are dangerous individuals living in that vicinity and the
officer will be alerted when he arrives at the scene, and provided a
description of the individual if he is there. The system precisely indi-
cates the individuals known to live at that address.
This is the direct result of having an officer shot in 1969. He w'alked
into a situation. j\Iany other officers knew Avhat the problem was at
that location, but he did not. He was a new officer and, unfortunately,
lie was killed.
Mr. Lyxch. Tliis system could have alerted him to that problem?
]Mr. Swt:eney. Yes, this system is in existence right now. A random,
two-block search is available to us.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me just a minute. Let me make sure I
understand it. That system discloses who in that area has been guilty
of disturbances ?
Mr. Post. It is not restricted to disturbances. If we received a dis-
turbance call, the dispatcher, prior to the time he places the call over
the air, or simultaneously, will enter the address of the call in the
computer. Then for an area surrounding that occurrence, the computer
will provide incidents, past histories, or subjects that have assaulted
officers in the past.
They will say, "There is no record at the address you are going;
however, two doors to the west there is so-and-so, who assaulted police
officers in 1969."
This is in existence now. All we are talking about in ALERT III
is to move this one step closer to the man in the field, and that is put
it in the car with them.
This will conclude my presentation on the computers. At this time,
I would like to introduce Officer Barrel Stephens, from special oper-
ations, who will talk to you about the things and the projects they are
involved in.
Statement of Barrel Stephens
Mr. Stephens. I am representing the special operations division
task force and we have designed a three-part project entitled, "Appre-
hension-Oriented Patrol Deployment." This project is centered on the
deployment of manpower available in the division's tactical miit. The
tactical unit is a flexible unit designed to support other elements of
the department, and has the responsibility for dignitary protection,
crowd control in special events, and disorder suppression.
The three parts of the project are the criminal information center,
perpetrator-oriented patrol, and location-oriented patrol.
The purpose of the criminal information center is to collect, cor-
relate, analyze, and disseminate information relative to crime and
criminal activities in the Kansas City area. The center was designed
for use by the entire department and other agencies in the metropolitan
area.
The center began by identifying the most active burglary and rob-
bery subjects. These subjects were identified by each of the three patrol
582-584
divisions, the investigations division, and the tactical unit. A note-
book was published that contained mug shots and the most current
information available on the subjects. These notebooks were distributed
within our department and other law enforcement agencies in the
area.
The notebook introduction requested that officers contact the center
when tliey stopped, observed, or arrested and of the subjects in the
book. Tlie introduction also requested that the officers forward any
information they had in regard to criminal subjects or criminal
activities.
The people that are in this book — this should be made clear — are
the type of oll'ender one would call the professional offender. They are
individuals who survive on the fruits of their criminal efforts. The
subjects in the book average 12.3 felony arrests per person and 1.15
felony convictions.
The center also solicited support of the community by publishing-
several articles in a local newspaper. These articles I'equested the
citizens contact the center in the event they had information about
criminals or criminal activities in their communities. We are of the
opinion the center can serve as a valuable communications link be-
tween all of the law enforcement agencies in the metropolitan area,
citizens in the community and the respective elements of our own
department, in a common effort to make our city a safer place to live.
The perpetrator-oriented patrol is defined as the assignment of offi-
cers to high probability criminal suspects with a view toward appre-
hending such suspects in the commission of a crime or by gathering
enough information about these subjects to convict them for crimes
that they have committed in the past. This patrol tactic involves sys-
tematic spot surveillances of these subjects on a periodic basis. On this
basis, suspects are not surveyed continuously, but rather in the term of
an assigned officer's available patrol time and information relative to
the suspect's probability of being criminally active.
Thus, where it is highly probable a suspect is active, he is the sub-
ject of greater surveillance. The surveillance tactics employed might
be defined as flexible and open, rather than closed, visible, and pro-
voking.
With respect to legal aspects of surveillance, the court in Johnson v.
Johnson,^ U.S. district court, northern district, held that "within
limits laws enforcement authorities could conduct a continuous sur-
veillance." Specifically, the court held : "The Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation can maintain one car within the block of the subject's
residence for the purpose of surveillance and permit one car to follow
the subject."
Location-oriented patrol is defined as the assigiiment to areas, as
determined by crime information analysis, with a view toward maxi-
mizing apprehensions. The officers are assigned unmarked vehicles not
commonly associated with police Avork, such as campers, taxicabs,
sports cars, and the like.
The tactical unit squads receive their assignments from the crime
analyst, who is a member of the task force staff. The analyst reviews
burglary and robbery reports daily. Assiginnents are made in areas
that show some type of pattern in the offenses committed, or where a
large number of offenses are committed.
585
The analyst prepares an assignment folder that contains the offenses,
a breakdown on how and when the crimes are occurring, and the type
of property that the victim is losing. The analyst also reviews any
information tliat he has available from citizen sources or sources within
our department or other metropolitan agencies. He provides any sus-
pect information on people that might be responsible for the crimes
in the area.
The assignment folder is given to the squad, which is made up of
six men and the supervisor; they review the assignment and discuss
what type of strategy they will use to attack the problem. It may be
a combination of using undercover-type tactics — where they can move
in and obsen^e what is happening without changing the environment —
or they may utilize a more proactive-type policing with uniforms and
visible patrol.
The special operations task force project will be evaluated in several
ways. The criminal information center will be evaluated basically in
terms of its use by officers in the department and those from outside
agencies. The patrol strategies will be compared with each other and
with other types of patrol that are being conducted within the
department.
The location-oriented patrol will be measured with respect to the
24 experimental beats that we are operating as compared to eight con-
trol beats, matched in groups of four, one patrol beat to three experi-
mental beats. We will compare the time that we spend in experimental
beats with the same time period in the control beat and if there is any
decrease or increase in crime, if we prove it, we say we have some type
of effect.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Sweeney, I wonder if at this time you could explain
to the committee how your department has received funding for these
various projects. I understand you indicated LEAA has provided some
funds. It is also my understanding you are receiving a substantial
amount of support for implementation and for evaluation from the
police foundation.
Mr. SwEEXEY. Since 1969 we have received approximately $4.2 mil-
lion from LEAA, and in the past year we have received $1.1 million
from the police foundation.
Mr. Lynch. What is the foundation money being used for?
Mr. Sweeney. The police foundation money primarily goes to the
support of patrol task force implementation. They did specify money
to permit the developmental work, and its undefined outcomes. Since
they have ended up supporting the projects that have emerged out of
it. The Police Foundation has also provided support for some new task
forces we started, one in the area of investigation and another in the
area of personnel.
They are providing support for publication of a book just simply
both readings and materials we have found useful in patrol in the last
year. We expect that book will be published in about 2 weeks.
Mr. Lynch. Is there a separate, independent evaluation component
for the patrol task force work ?
Mr. Sweeney. I should indicate, approximately $2 out of ever^ $3
awarded to us by the Police Foundation have gone into the evaluation.
This is very uncharacteristic of most funding agencies and the foun-
dation is as anxious as we are to find out basic information.
95-158 O— 73— pt. 1 38
586
Mr. Lynch. Who is doing that evaluation ?
Mr. Sweeney. We have an independent staff with members of the
Police Foundation on it, and independent civilian consultants we have
hired. And as Officer Brown indicated, we have some police officers
involved in the observation and evaluation.
Mr. Lynch. You said it was uncharacteristic, and you said that with
a smile. I take it your view would be that while it may be uncharacter-
istic, it is a fundamental necessity in this kind of program ?
Mr. Sweeney. Given our basic knowledge in the field at the present
time we believe it is a fundamental necessity ; yes. We are talking with
the national institute about some other studies they are anxious to do.
They came to us and asked if we would be willing to undertake re-
search. This is in both the areas of investigation and areas of response
time.
Mr. Lynch. It has been your testimony this morning that in devel-
opment of all or in the major part of these programs, the street-level
patrolman of the Kansas City Police Department has participated ; is
that correct ?
Mr. Sweeney. The computers and helicopters go back a couple of
years, but the ALERT III design Jim read earlier is the product of
the task force officers and myself.
Mr. Lynch. Are you still a member of the staff of the Police Foun-
dation, Mr. Sweeney ?
Mr. Sweeney. No, that is a point of confusion. I never was a mem-
ber of the staff of the Police Foundation.
Mr. Lynch. What was your association with them ?
Mr. Sweeney. I was the program director of the Massachusetts
State Planning Agency back in the end of 1971 and beginning of 1972,
when I served as a Police Foundation consultant to the south patrol
division. In January of last year I was asked by both the foundation
and Chief Kelley to come to Kansas City on a full-time basis. So I am
paid out of the grant to Kansas City. But, basically, I am owned and
disowned, as is appropriate, by the foundation and the department.
Mr. Lynch. I see. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
Chairman Pepper. Before Mr. Winn begins, what is the source of
funds of the Police Foundation, Mr. Sweeney ?
Mr. Sweeney. I believe it was in 1970, the Police Foundation was
established as a subfoundation of the Ford Foundation and was given
$30 million and a mandate to foster police improvements throughout
the Nation. They have a board, totally independent of the Ford Foun-
dation. It is comprised of prominent academicians in the field, as well
as prominent members, such as Quinn Tamm of the lACP and several
past police chiefs, such as Herbert Jenkins of Atlanta and Stan
Schrotel of Cincinnati.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Winn.
Mr. Winn. I really don't have too many questions. I am very im-
pressed with the businesslike and efficient approach that Mr. Sweeney
and these young men are taking in trying to analyze the problems of
crime. It is obvious that they have shown an inclination and a desire
to solve these problems enough that they wanted outside financial help.
It is badly needed in these fields.
587
I would like to point out to you, and I am sure none of these men
know that I have a special interest in the Kansas City, Mo., Police
Department since my father was formerly secretary to the board of
police commissioners in the Kansas City area many years ago.
I would like to point out to the committee, too, that the community
relationship that the police department in Kansas City now enjoys, I
think is one of an outstanding response on the part of the community.
This has not been easy for the Kansas City, Mo., Police Department to
overcome, because down through the years, when Kansas City did not
enjoy a very good reputation as far as crime-fighting was concerned —
and none of these young men were involved in that — the police de-
partment for some period of time was frowned upon by the community.
I think Chief Kelley has done an outstanding job of allowing his
young officei's and the law enforcement officers on the police depart-
ment to participate in many community activities. I think the com-
mmiity has faith in them.
I had written down some questions on exactly how all of these sur-
veys and this statistical information, which to some people may seem
kind of dull, will turn it around and be a part of preventative proce-
dures of crime, but I think after hearing 2 hours of testimony, and the
fact you pulled it all together, I think you have answered my questions
just by your testimony.
Mr. Sweeney. I would like to respond to one point you mentioned
about the finances. Departments across the Nation are sorely in need
of financial support, particularly in the equipment areas. Cities cannot
cut back on their budgets for personnel generally, but we are hurting
very badly in keeping pace with technology and also hurting badly
because the cities have not in the past put up money for research and
development.
I should indicate that we have several other projects going on in
Kansas City. What we have outlined to you today is on the task forces.
I should indicate that last week Chief Kelley gave us the go ahead on
the new development program and we now consider our task forces
somewhat obsolete. We are designing a sector development plan aimed
at taking the information coming out of the task forces and feeding it
back into our sectore to develop specific tailored strategies for each
area of the city. '
Mr. Wixx. I wonder if you could, this would hold true of all of your
testimony and any statistical information you would care to add. give
it to the committee or send it to the committee for inclusion in the
record.
I have a feeling, Mr. Chairman, that when we build the complete
record of 3 weeks of hearings, every morning and every afternoon for
3 weeks with police departments from all over the country, that the
record will be one that each police department will want to have in
their hands so they can compare them. It is amazing to us that even
though there are international police associations, and the police chiefs
meet, there seems to be a fantastic lack of communication between the
police departments as far as statistics are concerned.
They don't seem to share the things that should be shared with other
police departments and still they are all facing the same basic problem
with the continuous rise of crime in this country.
Would you agree to that ?
588
Mr. Sweeney. I fully agree. Another thing would be, as I indicated
earlier, the absence of information. We should admit we are guilty of
a certain amount of "departmental chauvanism." We are proud of our
department. I think, at times, this is also a danger.
Many departments around the country will tell you that they are the
best, and I think tune out listening to what the other departments have
to offer. Chiefs of police cannot admit they may learn something from
another chief of police.
Mr. Winn. We have found when we ask one city department and one
chief, do you know about the program that is now in progress and has
been for 2 years, or 6 years, in another city ? That they say, "yes, we
heard about it; but we don't know what it is all about." Still, they
might be asking LEAA for additional funds to do exactly what some-
body has been doing for 2 years.
Mr. Sweeney. This is one thing we found the Police Foundation has
been good to us on, in addition to providing research and development
costs they have provided us with the ability to travel around the coun-
try and look at what is going on. We have tried wherever possible to
avoid duplicating that which has already been developed. That is a
bad problem of law enforcement today.
Mr. Winn. I thank you very much for your testimony today. As I
said, anything you care to include in your new sector program that
you say Chief Kelley has approved, if you would send us the back-
ground and outline on that foi- incorporation in the record, this would
be very beneficial, I am sure, to other police departments somewhere
in this country.
Mr. Sweeney. Thank you.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Sweeney, I would appreciate it if you and
3'our associates would give me what answers you can to these questions.
First, who are the people, generally, who commit crime?
Second, what have you learned to be the cause of crime, primarily ?
And, third, commendable as your efforts have been in reducing crime
in your area are, we still have in every city of America a lot of crime
of a violent and serious character.
The third question is, "\^Tiat can be done, in your opinion and out of
your experience and knowledge, to further reduce materially crimes of
violence and serious character in this country ?
The first is, who are the people who commit crimes? Second, what
have you observed to be the cause ; and, third, what more can be done
to reduce crime in your city of Kansas City, Mo. ?
Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Chairman, I think they are all somwhat inter-
related. I would put criminals in three categories by type of crime. The
first is opportunistic, which may be pretty close to anyone, or at least
a large number of persons in our society when the opportunity pre-
sents itself. It also takes in large categories of juveniles.
The professional who makes his living off crime. In this person Ave
generally have been able to identify a social pattern, or lifestyle of
crime. We are learning more about it, his associates and interactions.
And the last is the emotional criminal.
'Wliat we have got to do is take each type of crime category and
cut it up. I don't think it makes any sense to talk about crime, as rape,
without breaking it into distinct categories and finding out if its vic-
tim precipitated rape, for example. There are other sick people out
589
there running around snatching women off the street. We really have
to break crime apart. Other types of rapes involve just plain grudge
reporting. I think we have to cut apart every single crime category.
Jim mentioned for aggravated assault and homicide, we are now going
back and beginning the study of rape.
I think we have to do the same with burglary : Take it apart and
identify how it is committed ; who it is committed by ; the economic
distribution of stolen goods; every possible way how we can get a
handle on it.
We do not accept, as most other police departments, the assumption
we can only deal with the opportunity to commit crime. We think we
can deal with the motivating factor beforehand. I think what we are
faced with is bankruptcy in knowledge in this country at the present
time about crime problems in general and everyday police problems
everybody seems to know go on in the street.
There are officers out there, we know, who understand those prob-
lems. They are close to them daily. They use very sophisticated tech-
niques in addressing and handling emotionally disturbed people.
Perhaps the finest applied psychologists in this country are in police
departments. We have to find out what they know, what the problems
are, and get it back in the form to help us select the best person to
send on the streets, because there is no way we can supervise him very
closely. He is out there exercising enormous discretion. We have to
provide him with the best information we can and train him to exercise
that discretion in the best way possible.
I cannot come up with any quick solutions. I am saying we are trying
to move on a number of fronts. We are trying to use the best tech-
nolog}' available to provide our officers with information and provide
them with support. AVe are trying to move in the research areas to
fill knowledge gaps which we have inlierited. There is a lack of under-
standing of both the criminal and of deterrence prevention, and the
problems we face. We are trying to professionalize and build our
people.
I think we are at a very early stage in development in the United
States and I think we seriously have to begin with the admission that
we know very, very little.
Chairman Pepper. Do you believe by persistent application of this
sort of technique you have displayed here this morning that we can
reduce crime in this country ?
Mr. SwEEXEY. Yes, sir. I will not accept the premise that several
of the academicians have come out with and said, "There is nothing
police can do about crime." I am not going to claim we can control
crime. I think we can do certain things to bring it under control, reduce
it, and cut down certain types of crime.
Chairman Pepper. Are you handicapped in any way by lack of
funds in doing what you would like to do and know how to do in curb-
ing crime further in Kansas City, Mo.
Mr. Sweexey. We are impaired somewhat by the fact that the cities
gejierally are very bankrupt. They do not have the money. They have
commitments to a certain number of police officere. We end up haggling
over budgets. It is not a matter of bad faith, just an absence of money.
Last year one-fifteenth of 1 percent of our budget went into equip-
ment and capital outlay. We need basic equipment. If we are going to
590
get to the point of providing officers in the street with information
like a professional, we need further technological advancement. There
needs to be a very conscious effort of advancement but I don't think
we should reinvent the wheel.
There are many problems. There is no way the Kansas City, Mo.,
Police Department could take on all of the problems we would like
to undertake at this time. We could sit down and between us list off
to you about 400 problem areas we think we need information on.
There is no way we can tackle all of those at this time.
I think we run head on into simplistic solutions that people propose
and they propose them without sufficient knowledge of what the police
have to do.
Chairman Pepper. The LEAA funds that have been made available
to you in the amount you told us about, do you think it would be
better for whatever funds are made available to you to be usable at
the discretion of your department, or should they be necessarily rele-
gated to certain uses ?
Mr. Sweeney. I can respond for myself and not for Chief Kelley
or the department. I guess my personal view is I would like to see
Federal subsidies in basic areas of equipment and capital outlay, that
would be basically at the discretion of the local community. Beyond
that a substantial portion of money should be provided for research
and development. This should not be absurd amounts of money, be-
cause we do not have a stable of people to conduct the kind of re-
search and analysis or even equipment development we need.
The Government should selectively choose those people capable of
helping the law enforcement people in the country and endoree them —
and I mean very selectively.
Chairman Pepper. If certain funds were made available to the Police
Department of Kansas City, Mo., giving you the authority, the dis-
cretion, as to how they can best employ those funds, whether putting
on additional police or hiring research teams that you do describe here
today, purchasing certain critical equipment like these computers and
the like, how would you employ those funds '(
Mr. Sweeney. I would almost in some ways put the research and
development into a separate pool. I think I would provide subsidy to
the departments for day-to-day operations because we are critically
in need of that across the Nation.
But I would take the research and development area and, simply
because we do lack a stable of people that could come in and help us,
selectively farm that out and let the criminal justice undertake all of
the rest of the work the system needs. And between police departments,
we have to divide the work between us and replicate each other's work
to find out if we are on the right track or not.
You have found from the survey Mr. Head told us about, one-third
rate of recidivism in a period of 2 years in respect to people committing
homicides and aggravated assaults. In dealing with those people, the
repeatere, you, obviously, as I said a while ago, have to have the help
of the courts, prosecuting attorneys, and other State and/or Federal
agencies.
Chairman Pepper. Otherwise, it is kind of like we have in a lot of
areas, habitually arresting drunks, habitual drunkards, you are arrest-
ing them again and again and again. But the police department doesn't
591
have a means ordinarily for dealing with those people, except to arrest
them and put them in jail.
Mr. Sweeney. We are heavily dependent upon other people.
Chainnan Pepper. What would you say are the problems you have
Lii respect to the prosecuting attorneys, the courts and the correctional
institutions of your area ? How do they relate to your problem ?
Mr. Sweeney. There are significant backlogs. I guess I would also
add that I think, as I said, we are heavily dependent on the rest of
the system. I think we have to get a lot ot our ovra house in order. I
think they have got to move.
We have to set priorities. Obviously, the backlogs are immovable.
Chairman Pepper. How long does it take in Kansas City, Mo.,
ordinarily, for a person to be brought to trial after he has been
apprehended ?
Mr. Stephens. About 0 months.
Chairman Pepper. During that 6 months, you have the problem of
bond and that individual engaging in some other criminal activity,
and by the knowledge you have displayed, a lot are repeaters anyway.
The chances are those people are going to commit some more crimes
during that 6 months that they are out on bail. And if you keep them
in the prison, you have to pay for them, or the taxpayer does.
Mr. Winn. "Excuse me. Mr. Stephens, isn't that 6 months an im-
provement over what it was before, with the appointment of a couple
of new judges?
Mr. Stephens. From my experience, going through the system after
the arrest, it has been averaging around 6 months for the past 4 years.
Prior to that, it may have changed.
Mr. Chairman, in regard to the recidivism of some of these people
and your discussion of the bonding procedures, some of the people
that "we are dealing with in the perpetrator- oriented patrol strateg}'
fit the picture you described of getting out on bail and repeatedly
committing crimes to pay their lawyers and bondsmen.
We had several individuals that were arrested as much as seven or
eight times from the time of the first arrest until they went to trial
for that first crime they were charged with committing like crimes.
Chairman Pepper. I heard from a certain source this morning that
in the District of Columbia a certain person was charged with commit-
ting a homicide and an armed robbery and has still been out for several
weeks because the police department didn't consider it was its duty
to ser\'e a bench warrant and the Department of Justice, U.S. Mar-
shal's Office, didn't have enough personnel to do it.
Now, that is certainly a tragic situation, if there are people out who
have been charged with serious crimes and maybe whose bond should
have been revoked and bench warrants issued, but nobody to serv^e the
warrant. Could a condition like that exist in Kansas City, Mo.?
Mr. Post. I hope not.
Chairman Pepper. I would hope it couldn't happen anywhere, but
it shows the shortage of personnel in certain critical areas. This is a
person charged with a murder and an armed robbery still hanging
around, presumably on the street, because nobody is picking this person
up.
Anyway, you have the court problem and, of course, the prosecuting
problem. What about your correctional institutions? What do you do
592
with these people, these repeaters that you discovered ? What do you
think should be done with them ?
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I might attempt to give an answer which
might be prevalent among policemen today, particularly those police-
men out on the streets in the police cars, and that is that frustration
in regard to your correctional system and the court system, that they
are a part of the system, but they have no input into the system, really
no control over what the system does, and they are in fact facing,
having to react to, the system instead of going forward and improving
the system.
There is nothing they can really do.
Chairman Pepper. In other words, you are the people that have the
responsibility of apprehending and incarcerating these people who
commit crime, but you don't have anything to do with what is done
with the people you incarcerate, or you arrest.
Mr. Brown. That is correct, sir. And because of the problems in the
rest of the system, it instills, I think, a deep sense of frustration in
the policeman, too.
Mr. Sweeney. I guess I am somewhat reminded of two studies I am
aware of in the correctional area that a lot of people in the country
in the correctional field seem to be avoiding. One was done in New
York, a massive offender study, and the other in California.
They analyzed the custody and results of the correctional system
and came out with the yield of zero to negative impact.
Chairman Pepper. President Nixon states our penal institutions
were more colleges for crimes than correctional institutions, in so many
instances.
Mr. Sweeney. They had zero to negative impact, and on top of this
the California data indicated we were spending approximately $250
million a year warehousing or keeping people in the correctional in-
stitutions in the State and only paying about $150 million of police-
related activities. Almost two times as much money being spent on
warehousing people in the correctional system than being spent in
the prevention area. Tliat study is the "California Assembly Office
Report on the Cost and Effectiveness of California Law Enforcement
and Corrections."
Chairman Pepper. One other area, and that is the juvenile delin-
quency section. What are your experiences with that? What are your
prdblems with the juveniles?
Mr. Post. We have very frustrating experiences there, also I sup-
pose, due to existing juvenile codes, we are not really in a position to
make any recommendations, other than there are problems there and
it is frustrating.
Mr. Head. I would like to respond to that. It is very frustrating
dealing with juveniles. It is a whole different ballgame for the police
officer. As is the case in Kansas City, we can't interrogate a juvenile
until he has gone before a juvenile court. We are awarded that au-
thority by the juvenile court to interrogate a juvenile for a serious
crime.
So you can see this is very frustrating for a police officer.
Mr. Lynch. That would be the case. Officer Head, whether this
is homicide, rape, aggravated assault, or a child who has taken $2
worth of material from a store ; is that right ?
593
Mr. Head. Yes. Any stealing or any serious crime.
Chairman Pepper. Gentlemen, there was a case here in the District
of Columbia a foAv years ago, where a 17-year-old youth robbed,
raped, and killed an elderly lady ; and all that was done to him was
to incarcerate him until he was 21 years old and then turn him out.
That, to me. is shocking evidence of irresponsible handling of that
kind of a case. AVho knows but what that boy, if he is willing to com-
mit all of those crimes, does not have a predilection toward crime
and maybe for committing serious crimes upon other people when
he gets out again. It would seem to me that that situation probably
happens in a good many parts of the country, too.
Mr. Head. We have a very recent case in Kansas City where a
14-year-old was involved in a triple homicide, and the juvenile court
said he could not be tried as an adult. Consequently, this will end
up as one of these cases where he is a ward of the juvenile court and
will be sentenced through them.
Chairman Pepper. The difficulty of it is, if they could do something
about it, if they could treat him or do something. Probably some good
strap on some of those would help a lot, if they were applied a number
of times, to teach them a little respect for law and society.
Gentlemen, we want to thank you in the warmest way for the
splendid testimony you have given us here this moning. It is encourag-
ing to see 3^our initiative. Will you please convey to Chief Kelley our
deep gratitude for your coming here and our warm commendation of
what he and his department are doing and showing the keen intelli-
gence, initiative, and imagination to come to grips with the funda-
mental problems that are involved in the commission of crime.
Mr. Sweeney. Thank you, sir.
[The following material was received for the record:]
Crime Specific Disturbance Intervention ; Program Development Phase
introduction to theory
Posing the question of preventing crimes of violence, particularly those sur-
rounded by environments of closures, acquaintance, and emotion, usually elicits
responses that such events are non-preventable. These responses appear to be
predicated on the above situational elements which imply a spontaneity and
privacy surrounding such acts thus precluding any external control mechanism
such as the police from being present in a preventive capacity. In 1971, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation alluded to this in their UCR i)y stating :
"As it has been pointed out in prior issues of this publication, police are
powerless to prevent a large number of these crimes, which is made readily
apparent from the circumstances or motives which surround criminal homicides.
The significant fact emerges that most murders are committed by relatives of
the victim or persons acquainted with the victim. It follows, therefore, that
criminal homicide is, to a major extent, a national social problem beyond police
prevention."
The inability of the police to be present in even a minority of such violent
situations cannot be disputed. This agreement does not necessarily lead to
the conclusion, however, that such crimes are non-preventable or that the police
are powerless to deal with them before that fact. Such a conclusion might
be logical if prevention is defined only as removing the opportunity for com-
mitting a violent act. Most preventive practices of police such as mobile patrol,
technological monitoring systems, programs involving citizens alerts and target
hardening are principally focused on opportunity removal. As measured by this
framework, situation of private violence most certainly are non-preventable.
Skepticism invades non-preventability conclusions, however, when the scope
of preventive definitions is broadened to consider factors other than an oppor-
594
tunity for the act itself. Any crime, including acts of violence, lends itself to
consideration of at least two factors: (1) the opportunity (environment, situa-
tion) for the act to occur and (2) the willingness (desire, motivation) of the
individual to act. It is the second of these factors that has been most neglected
in considering the preventability of criminal acts.
Several psychological and sociological theories on the framework of this mo-
tivation have been advanced (see Preliminary Literary Research, Appendix 1).
In this respect, it is believed that most of the factors, conscious or unconscious,
contributing to a specific motivation exist prior to, during, and after a reaction
to that motivation.
Aside, therefore, from the question of existence of such factors, are such
questions as abilities to (1) recognize and identify these factors, (2) treat
them, and (3) establish the contacts necessary to implement such recognitions
and treatments. The question of ability to recognize certain factors lends itself
to both historical research of actual violence situations as well as analysis of
current situations having similar motivational frameworks. The question of
treatments is amenable to experimental testing — even if recognition abilities
are limited (recognition implies a selective or screening process for treatment
entry and some form of randomization might be utilized barring an effective
screening criteria). Both recognition and treatment, however, are dependent
on the third question, i.e., establishing that contacts with individuals subse-
quently involved in violent acts do in fact occur. The lack of such contacts
prior to the act would prohibit the application of any recognition and treatment
systems developed. A preliminary examination of homicide and aggravated as-
saults had indicated that a high percentage of these violent acts have charac-
teristics similar to those of disturbances, particularly those of a domestic va-
riety. In this respect, the chances for the manifestation of recognizable violence
indicators also appear to be maximized.
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
To delineate the contact theory, the Department collected data on homicides
and aggravated assaults occurring during 1970 and 1971. Each offense was
placed into one of three categories : ( 1 ) Non-Disturbance — homicides and as-
saults not directly evolving out of a disturbance situation, e.g., a homicide or
assault occurring during the commission of a crime; (2) Non-Domestic Distur-
bance— homicides or assaults resulting from a disturbance outside of a domestic
setting, e.g., in a tavern or on the street; and (3) Domestic Disturbance — homi-
cides or assaults resulting from a disturbance in or within close proximity of a
residence where the resident is directly involved in the disturbance, or is responsi-
ble for the presence of one or more of the persons who are involved.
Half of the homicides (48% in 1970 and 51% in 1971) occurred in a distur-
bance environment. From a randomly .selected sample of 500 aggravatetl assaults
for those years (confidence level of 99%) it was discf>vered that about two-thirds
of the aggravated assaults (62% in 1970 and 67% in 1971) occurretl in a distur-
bance environment. A narrowing process revealed that approximately one-third
of the homicides (28% in 1970 and 40% in 1971) and aggravated assaults (31%
in 1970 and 32% in 1971) involved a domestic disturbance. This api}ears to sup-
port the idea that the violent characteristics of a person are manifested in a
disturbanco situation.
In examining the arrests records of the participants in domestically related
homicides and aggravated assaults, it has been found that a sizeable number
have had previous contact with the police in di.sturbance and assault situations
therein establishing the likelihood of a positive correlation between disturbances,
homicides and aggravated assault.s. The 1970 data revealed that in 32% of the
homicides and 37% of the aggravated assaults, either the victim or the suspect
had an arrest for disturbance or assault w^ithin 2 years prior to the homicide or
aggravated assault in question. Similarly, the 197i data revealed that in 22% of
the homicides and 37% of the aggravated assaults, either the victim or the suspect
had an arrest for disturbance or assault within 2 years prior to the homicide or
aggravated assault in question.
These figures are impressive in that they pertain only to arrests. Most distur-
bance situations do not result in an arrest being made. Thus, it can be assumed
that an even higher percentage of victi)ns and suspects have actually been in-
volved in disturbance situations and may have had contact with the police prior
to their involvement in the homicide or aggravated assault. Supportive of this
will hopefully be data now being extracted from existing computer systems con-
595
taining addresses where disturbances have been handled by police in an informal
process. Matches with addresses where homicides and aggravated assjiults have
occurred may then show at least a probability of disturbance — violent crime par-
ticipant synonymy (the address data does not contain name associations). The
preliminary analysis iM>iuts to a positive correlation between disturbances, homi-
cides and aggravated assaults. It also reveals that the police have had contact
with the victims and susi)ects prior to the homicide or assault.
Thus the iM)lice may have had at least the opiwrtunity to intervene in the mo-
tivational process leading to a homicide or assault. Some attention, therefore,
must be given to utilization of this opportunity.
It is questionable as to whether the present methods of handling a disturbance
situation are effective in averting future violence, since the data reveals that
about one-fourth of the aggravated assault victims with previous disturbance or
assault arrests (25% in 1970 and 21% in 1971) and about one-third of the ag-
gravated assault suspects with previous disturbance or assault arrests (37% in
1970 and 34% in 1971) have disturbance or assault arrests subse<iuent to the ag-
gravated assault in question. If the present methods of dealing with distur-
bances are not satisfactory in averting future violence, then more effective
methods must be found. This is the puii)ose of setting up an exi)erimental en-
vironment to test the effectiveness of various methods in treating disturbances
to reduce homicides and aggravated assaults.
CONSIDERATIONS IN EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
It is anticipated that in the experimental framework it would be necessary to
have a control group to serve as a baseline to measure the effect of the various
experimental groups. The control group might encompass the conventional treat-
ment of disturbances, with no changes in the present disturbance procedures.
The oflScer either makes an arrest or handles the disturbance in such a manner
as to temporarily restore peace, and then proceeds with his normal ix)liee duties.
There would be very few referrals of the disturbance participants to agencies
where they might reach aid in solving their specific problems, and what referrals
are made would not be available to the officer in any systematic form. The experi-
mental groups would then be set up in such a way that the effectiveness of the
experimental variable could be measured against the control group, or against
another experimental group, ^'arious experimental groups have been contem-
plated, of which all or any combination could be used in the actual experiment.
For example. Experimental Group I might consist of the conventional treat-
ment used in the control group, with the addition of providing the officers a
referral system. With the referral system, the officer might have available to
him a list of social agencies dealing with various kinds of problems. Using the
referral system the officer would use his judgement in referring people to these
various social agencies. In this experimental group the effect of referral baseii
on the officer's judgment might also l)e assessed.
Experimental Group II might consist of officers si)ecialiy trained to handle
disturbance situations. The training would include a grounding in psychological
and sociological theory to help the officer better diagnose and understand the fac-
tors involved in inter- and intra -personal conflicts. In addition, the officer could 'be
provided with the referral system. In this experimental group, we might examine
the diagnostic effect of special training and referral by comparing it with Experi-
mental Group I. P'xperimental Group II might actually be di\ided into two ex-
perimental sub-groups. The first sub-group of trained officers could provide only
surface referral services and then continue with their normal police duties, while
the second grouping could pro\ide the referral services and then devote their
full time to following the progress of their referral cases. The officers would de-
termine that the persons referred actually arrived at the agency and that the
agency provided the proper service and attention to the referred person. By com-
paring these two sub-groups it would be possible to determine whether the
trained referral ser^-ice in and of itself, or the progress of the referral is the
more important factor (the combinatiofi may also be shown as the key).
Experimental Group III might consist of professional social workers utilized
full time by police officers to handle disturbance situations. From this group it
can be determined whether a professional social worker is any more adept at
diagnosing and handling personal conflicts than a ix>lice officer. As in Experi-
mental Group II, this group could be divided into two experimental sub-groui)s.
The flrst sub-group could make contact with the disturbance subjects making
necessary referrals and end their contact with the subjects at this i)oint. The
596
second sub-group could use referral and follow the progress of their subjects
through the referral process. Once again this might help to determine if it is
actually the referral that is effective or if the follow-up is equally important. By
comparing Experimental Group II and III, a fair evaluation as to the effects of
professional social workers as compared to specially trained officers can be made
both in terms of diagnosis and ability to follow-up.
MEASUREMENT CONSIDERATIONS
To correctly evaluate the results of the experiment it is important that the cor-
rect measurements be made. Some of the measurements foreseen at this time
include, the number of disturbances processed through the experimental and con-
trol groups : disturbance recidivism : referral rates ; arrest rates ; and the homi-
cide and aggravated assault rates. The homicide and aggravated assault rates
would be calculated for the domestic disturbance and non-domestic disturbance
categories separately. This might enable the Department to determine if treat-
ing domestic disturbances has an effect on non-domestic homicides and aggravated
assaults as well as those within the domestic categories.
There are also various attitudes that might be affected by the experimental
processes that could be measured. One of these is the attitudes of disturbance
participants towards the police and vice versa. Depending upon what type of
treatment and service the disturbance participants receive, their perception and
attitudes toward the police may vary. Likewise, the police officer's attitudes to-
ward the disturbance participants may vary according to the type of approach
he uses in handling the disturbance. Another attitude measurement would be
those of the professional social workers towards the police and of the i)olice to-
ward the soical workers. These attitudes might be measured on a pre-test-post-
test basis. Also measurable may be the attitudes of the various social agencies to-
ward the ix)lice and vice-versa.
In effect, the above measures tend to address the values of particular treat-
ments. A successful impact upon the principal crimes addressed without perhaps
knowing the reason is certainly beneficial ; however, this may also be an excel-
lent opportunity to study the causative factors and relationships heretofore sui>-
ported only within a theoretical framework. In this resi)ect, considerable attention
might and probably should be given to pattern identification within the experi-
mental and control groups during the conduct and evaluation periods of the
treatment processes.
ADDITIONAL PRELIMINARY PLANNING STEPS
Although considerable research has been done to date in preparation for an
eventual test and evaluation period, the realization of such a period still requires
a number of preliminary steps. Those to be considered include: (1) the better
articulation of the theoretical framework, (2) the determination and design of
an appropriate experimental framework to include the formulation of suitable
programs, the identification of proper group entrance mechanisms, and/or test
areas, the attempted identification of violence indicators through interview and
otherwise, the determination of suitable time frames for testing, and the determi-
nation of appropriate methods for planning and implementing this framework —
with attention to estimates of manpower requirements, resource integration and
costs; and (3) the determination and design of an appropriate evaluation frame-
work to include identification of suitable measurements, methods for data col-
lection, and techniques for interpretation — with attention to manpower require-
ments, resource integration and costs.
There is little question that this phase of the planning process will necessitate
the involvement of outside resources inasmuch as our experience in these areas
is limited. The above steps to take a minimum of four months.
Appendix I
Preliminary Review of Litbhiature
selected statements
1. Marvin E. Wolfgang, "Who Kills Whom", Psychology Today, "Vol. 3. No. 5
(October 1969) : "A subculture of violence is created in which both potential vic-
tims and potential offenders carry the culture values that tolerate or expect vio-
lence as well as the weapons to express it." p. 75
597
2. George D. Newton and Franklin E. Zimring, Firearms and Violence in Amer-
ican Life (A Staff Report to the National l^mmission on the Causes and Pre-
vention of Violence, 1970, Vol. 7) : A 1967 study in Chicago indicated that "71
percent of the Chicago killings involved acquaintances, neighbors, lovers, and
family members — people likely to have acted spontaneously in a moment of rage
and not necessarily with a single determination to kill." p. 43
3. James S. Campbell. Joseph R. Sahid. and David 1'. Stang, Laiv and Order
Reconsidered (A Staff Report to the National Ciommission on the Causes and
Prevention of Violence, Vol. 10) : "How can outside agencies detect violence-
breeding socialization processes? Conflict-ridden socialization leaves its scars on
the personality of the child at a very early age, and it often manifests itself only
in quite subtle motles of familial interaction. The aggressivity or violence may
not erupt until years later. Moreover, assuming detection were possible, how
would we intervene? p. 188
4. Donald J. Mulvihill and Melvin M. Tumin, Crimes of Violence (A Staff Re-
port to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. 1969,
Vol. 11) : "In violent crimes, too, the victim at times contributes to the commis-
sion of the offense. We might expect the victim to contribute to major violent
offenses and facilitate their execution by provoking or initiating a hostile reac-
tion to the offender. . . , by unconsciously inviting the offense through an emo-
tional pathology, by dii'ect invitation or incitation, or by omission of normal
preventive measure." p. 225
Twenty-two percent of the homicides in a 1967 study of 17 American cities in-
dicated victim precipitation "Thus, the conventional assumption that the homi-
cide victim is a weak and passive individual attempting to avoid an a.s.sault by
an offender who is brutal, strong, and overly aggressive would not always appear
to be correct." p. 226
•'Ostensible reasons for disagreements are usually trivial, indicating that many
homicides are spontaneous acts of passion, not products of a single determination
to kill." p. 230
"To the considerable extent that some forms of major violence — robbery in par-
ticular, are committed by strangers in outside or public locations, improved law
enforcement patrol and surveillance techniques will continxie to be required as
instruments of deterrence. Yet we must recognize that violence among intimates,
friends, and acquaintances, especially in criminal homicide and aggravated as-
sault, often occurs in private and indf>or locations. This requires a more imagina-
tive preventive response than traditional law enforcement has provided. Tech-
nique for di.scovery and intervention are needed to defuse conflict situations that
might otherwise lead to serious violence." p. 238
5. Warren S. Wille, M.D., "Citizens Who Commit Homicides," Revista Inter-
americana de Psicologia. Vol. 4. No. 2 (June, 1970) : (Paraphrase) "Out of a
sample of 100 homicide offenders, 47 percent had previous records of law^break-
ing of major proportions, which indicates that almost half of the people who
eventually commit murder have a prior history of excessive acting-out of ag-
gressive impulses, and inadequate behavior control." p. 137
"Many times, the act of homicides finally occurs when there is a more violent
argument than usually following a long period of building up of feelings of grie-
vance ..." p. 137
6. Donald J. Mulvihill and Melvin M. Tumin, Crimes of Violence (A Staff Re-
port to the National Commission on the Cau.ses and Prevention of Violence, 1969,
Vol. 12) : "We have intensively studied the criminal histories of many offenders
and conclude that by far the greatest proportion of all serious violence is com-
mitted by repeaters, not by one-time offenders." p. XXXI of Summary.
Frustration brings on an instigation, or an impetus to aggression. "The
strength of the instigation to aggres.siveness, that is, the degree of readiness to
be aggressive, depends on : ( 1 ) the strength of the drive toward the intended goal ;
(2) the degree of interference with the frustrated response, including, for in-
.stance, the presence or absence of alternative ways in which to achieve one's
end; and (3) the number of times the goal seeking activity has been frustrated.
According to this theory then, frustration can be cumulative and can remain
active over time. However, readiness for aggression can accumulate, even though
it comes from different frustrating experiences." "This theory may help to ex-
plain exces.sively violent responses to apparently trivial incidents." p. 435
"Many violence-prone persons are deficient in verbal and other social skills.
Such i)ersons may fall into the category of the 'pressure remover', who re.sorts
to violence as an expression of helplessness, or as a last minute effort to obliter-
598
ate situations to whicli he is unable to respond. Violence, for them, not only ex-
presses frustration, but also represents a brusque summary of the argument the
person cannot verbalize." p. 443
(Paraphrased) "One approach to violence is the use of violence to release
accumulated emotions, having little to do with the behavior of the victim. This
approach reveals that violence is not a unitary phenomenon." p. 443
". . . The 'Chronically violent criminal' can be undei-stood as an individual
in whom the violence inhibitors are either absent or so over-whelmed by the
instigators that the regularity of violent behavior is predictable. Putting the
matter in these terms also makes clear the crucial role of external stimuli to
increasing or reducing instigations and inhibitions to violent behavior." p. 450
7. Mary Lorenz Dietz, Ph.D., "Violence and Control : A Study of Some Rela-
tionshii)s of the Violent Subculture to the Control of Interpersonal Violence,"
Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 29. Part A (March-April, 1969) : (Paraphrase)
"The assumptions are that those that engage in interpersonal violence are
mentally unbalanced, criminally deviant, or both. Violent acts are conceived of
as impulsive and uncontrollable."
"Violence is conceived in this study as learned conduct, occurring in a linguistic
environment, taking into account the self and other, and resulting from con-
scious and deliberate evaluation of the situation and a decision to act."
(Paraphrase) "A violent subculture exists which provides i)ei"sons with the
opportunity to learn norms of conduct that approve and promote violence.
Violence is conceived as a form of approved conduct ; and is a recognized and
sometimes preferred, means of goal-achievement."
"Interpersonal violence in this context can be studied as deliberate and chosen
conduct, rather than as uncontrolled, impulsive, or reciprocal." "One value of
this conception is that violent acts can logically be studied as conduct that is
potentially predictable." Abstract #3675
8. David Abrahamseu, M.D., Our Violent Society (New York: Funk and
Wagnalls, 1970) : "But whatever the motivation, conflicts between individuals
and between groups become violent when people feel threatened or frustrated
and have lost faith in society's ability to protect them or to satisfy their
grievances." p. 6
9. Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, Violence in America — Historical
and Comparative Perspectives (A Staff Report to the National Commission on
the Causes and Prevention of Violence. 1969. Vol. 2) : ". . . Lewis Coser writes
that 'we may say that a conflict is more passionate and more radical when it
arises out of close relationships.' 'The closer the relationship,' so the reasoning
goes, 'the greater the effective investment, the greater also the tendency to sup-
press rather than express hostile feelings. ... In such cases feelings of hostility
tend to accumulate and hence to intensify.' " "But Coser himself states that,
though conflicts within close relationships are likely to be intense when they
occur, 'this does not necessarily point to the likelihood of more frequent conflict
in closer relationships than in less close ones.' " p. 396
10. Donald R. Cressey, ed.. Crime and Criminal Justice (New York Times
Book, 1971) : "According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, one of every
five policemen killed in the line of duty dies trying to breakup a family fight."
"The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of
Criminal Justice reported last year that family disputes 'are probably the single
greatest cause of homicides' in the United States." p. 178
(Paraphrase) "The New York City Police Department estimates that 40 per-
cent of its men injured in the line of duty were hurt while responding to family
disturbances."
599
"According to Dr. Bard, outmoded police organization is the silent factor
underlying the growing tension between ix>Iice and community, particularly in
the urban ghettos." "Professor Bard emphasizes that only the ix)lice, of all social
institutions, are present 24 hours a day, every day of the year, to answer the call
when family violence threatens." p. 180
11. Jane Watson Duncan, M.D. and Glen M. Duncan, M.D., "Murder in the
Family : A Study of Some Homicidal Adolescents," American Joiu-nal of
Psychiatry. Vol. 127, No. II (May, liYil) : Five case studies of homicidal adoles-
cents indicated a sequence of circumstances progressively more unbearable and
less amenable to the adolescent's control. "In the developing explosive circum-
stances, if alternatives to violence are not available or have been tried and have
failed, the risk of tragic outcome is greater." p. 77
12. Morton Bard, Ph.D. and Bernard Berkowitz, Ph.D., "A Community
Psychology Consultation Program in Police Family Crisis Intervention : Pre-
liminary Impressions." International Journal of Social Psychiatry, Vol. 15, No. 3
(1969) : (Paraphrase) "A crisis situation, in many instances, breaches typical
personality defense patterns in the face of thx-eat, and presents opportunities
for raditication of usual behavior by direct intervention. It is possible that greater
therapeutic effect can be achieved at the time of crisis than after the crisis
subsides and typical defensive patterns are reconstituted." p. 210
13. Morton Bard, Ph.D. and Bernard Berkowitz, Ph.D., "Family Disturbance
As a Police Function." Paper delivered at the 2nd National Symposium on
Law Enforcement Science and Technology in Chicago, Illinois, April 18, 1968:
"VTolfgang has lamented that the relationship between murderer and victim
can be adequately studied only after the fact. He also suggests that the murderer
may lead up to his final crime by a series of increasingly destructive acts." p. 8
"Systematic study of hundreds of instances of family violence potential may
reveal a pattern similar to the 'Cry for Help' of the suicide." p. 8
"Rasch has described 'homicide situations', i.e., relationships between victim
and perpetrator that appear with some consistency." p. 8
"Encouraging beginnings have been made on the possibilities of predicting
homicidal behavior and identifying homicide-prone individuals." p. 8
600
g E
<
OS
3
<
CO
C/5
<
— Q
>< i^
< s
o
z
«c
a
o
X
CO
<
E
E
601
• CM
t
(A
1
«> CO
w =»
o o
>
a> 01
o »-
c o.
«
•£ =
=:=
(/) rti
ss
.^
S t
(0
{/>
tjii
t/i
OJ 3
CO
a.ra
a>
v> <o
■>\
3
00
1
« «
OCM
into
E £
>
.£3
E
1 ■«-'
■^
*" ^
c
3 2 •«
lU
CO (J)
a>
o ™ >^
a.
^CSJ
£■=./,
00
t: <u 3
LU
o u o
o
=" ™ S
o
-•o £
0)^0.
S
£f =
ai
o
(uHa j:
E
UJ
t-
UJ
o
3
<C
z
'o Ti fl*
<
■ — ^ L.
c « ^
c o.ni
q:
o
00
3
1—
X
CO
<
O
O 3 3 3
•— ro cr ro
> CO Q) CO
<U CO (rt v>
^ tq .Q eg
oO o (O o
: Q>.
: (U
> o -^ o
CO c ■> c
.c to > «J
"o 3 ''^ 3 «
Q. ^ ^ .52 '-
W^ toT3 ^
00
o
to
cr
CO
'>
CO
OJ
CO
a>
(O
CO
ra
h.
J=l
^
o.
o
3
o
oo
a>
CO
0}
c
CJ
SZ
o
CO
c
c
eo
5
to
.c
.a
-O
♦-
(O
3
CO
3
CO
^
OJ
r/l
V
o
a
5
o
U 0) (/>
CO C-O
<
to
CO
<
>
<
a:
o
o
<
CD
—
o
o
CO -^
3*- CO
*- CO »-
CO Q> CO
'^^^
«2 CO o
" 2!>
0) ra £
CO O a
00
~ *- ,o a.
.t; 3 CO
5 " 3 I
^ CO O
CO CO ■ —
.§ 1! £
'■K O Q.
0 «.i;
= 3 " S.
:t? a> >-
"=—2
--=3.2
= CJ CO V
- W CO h-
So
o 0>
C CO
SE
c u
O 03^0 Crt
•.^ O 03 ±i
CO C *- 3
a> m ra „
E-" S <"
»_ ra CO
CO 00
■■^ ra
95-158 O— 73— pt. 1-
-39
602
Api)endix III
ASSOOIATBD COSTS
Amniint
Description
The Proactive-Reactive Patrol Deployment Project
By the South Patrol Division Task Force ^
At the outset of their deliberations, the South Patrol Task Force established
its primary aim as the prevention of crime. Tlie task force identified five priority
problems and began exploration of creative solutioas directed toward their
resolution. Immediately, the group was faced with the age old problem identified
by police administrators, namely, the absence of adequate time to effectively
attack their priority problems. Tlieir non-incident time, the task force members
figured, was of necessity directed toward preventive patrol. Preventive patrol,
however, appeared to relate only two of their five priority problems. The neces-
sity of maintaining preventive patrol next came under scrutiny and it was
recognized that the need to test the assumptions underlying that concept logically
preceded the development of patrol strategies. The Proactive-Reactive Patrol
Deployment Project was therefore born.
One of the primary tasks of i>olice departments in the United States is pre-
ventive patrol, namely, the random cruising of a police car in a given area. The
assumption underlying preventive patrol, frequently stated as fact, is that the
most effective deterrent to a potential criminal is the direct view of a i>atrolling
policeman, and/or the knowledge that iK>lice officers are available to respond
rapidly to the scene of a crime, thus increasing the risk of capture while de-
creasing the apparent opportunity for the successful commission of a crime. The
belief in preventive i>atrol is widely shared by police administrators and is the
general basis upon which police field forces are deployed nationwide.
In 1930, Bruce Smith wrote :
"Police are agreed that uniform patrols discourage the commission of certain
types of criminal acts, but even this elementary proposition lacks scientific
demonstration. So until we have a whole view of controlled exi>eriments which
show with some degree of conclusiveness the effect of uniform patrols upon
crime rate, and the iK)int where additional patrol strength results in diminishing
returns, police service, not only in America but elsewhere throughout the world,
will continue to hinge upon expert opinion, while governing bodies and the
taxpaying public will be handicapped in appraising demands, for additional
expenditures in the highly important field of police protection." "
Forty-two years later, our knowledge about the effectiveness of police patrol
is not measurably improved. In 1967, in a discussion of preventive patrol, the
President's Commission Task Force on Science and Technology noted, "There is
little evidence on how much crime is thereby prevented or how much would be
''■ This selection is a current draft of a proposal submitted by the Kansas City, Missouri
Police Department to the Police Foundation in May, 1972. Task Force membership at that
time included : Major Guy Hines ; Captain Clinton Kelly : Sgt. Billie Armstrong : Patrol-
men Charles Brown, Donald Johnson, Donald Marcum, Michael Travis, Owen Williams
and James Post. Design consultants : George Kelling and Thomas Sweeney.
2 Bruce Smith. Police Systems in the United States. Harper, New York (1960) p. 121.
603
prevented by alternative patrol tactics." ^ Restating the position of the Com-
mission somewhat more stronjjly, a recent report preimred by the Rand Cor-
poration for the Department of Housing and Urban Development concluded :
"We believe that there are significant knowledge gaps which make it impossible
to allocate, as rationally as should be the more than $1 billion dollars devoted
annually to police patrol programs. Because of these knowledge gaps, police
administrators currently must plan principally in terms of input measures (such
as numbers of patrolmen on the street or number of patrol hours) although what
they are trying to affect are output measures of police effectiveness (such as true
crime rate, apprehension rate, and speed and quality of service in response to
calls for service.) These knowledge gaps are one of the most important factors
limiting the development of effective aids to police patrol decision making." *
The report called for research and experimentation to identify the relationship
between police prevention patrol activities and crime prevention, deterrence, and
on-scene criminal apprehension.
"In short, between one third and one half of all patrol time is devoted to
preventive patrol and the police cannot specify with confidence what effect it has
on crime and criminal apprehension. In such a situation, police administrators
cannot know the resources are being allocated effectively. Analytical and experi-
mental studies are needed and could result in very substantial changes and
improvement in the u.se of police manpower." "^
Incidental to the deterrent and detection functions, preventive patrol provides
a means for police personnel to perform a wide range of governmental services,
including traffic control, provision of information, and hazard identification. In
addition, conspicuous presence of police on patrol is believed to increase citizen
perceptions of security, while the opportunity provided for citizen contact im-
proves police/community relations. Increased knowledge about the relative effec-
tiveness of preventive patrol in meeting these objectives also appears vital to
effective decision making about patrol techniques.
In a recent discussion of patrol, Reiss develops a set of dependent variables
which are of interest and relevant to the proposed study. An analysis of patrol
activity of the Chicago Police Department, found that only 2.55 percent of patrol
time was spent handling criminal matters. Of those criminal matters processed
by the patrol division, 93 percent were citizen initiated. It follows from this that
only a minute portion of the time on preventive patrol results in the discovery
of incidents which are processed in the system of criminal justice. Further he
suggests that if the productivity of some of the most highly proactive units of
the patrol division are analyzed, it will be found that that unit generates very
few criminal or noncriminal incidences. Pre-test data gathered by personnel of
the South Patrol Division through a self report activity analysis also appears
to support these conclusions. In data relating solely to the personnel of that
division it was determined that only 4.7 percent of patrol time was expended on
self initiated, crime-related activities. This figure includes a significant per-
centage of time spent on nonproductive building and vehicle checks and on
misdemeanors."
Another indicator of operational effectiveness that Reiss suggests is the quality
of the supi)ort that citizens provide to the police when the police are involved
in criminal and non-criminal incidences. He thus suggests that since proactive
policing alters citizen-police relations, proactive patrol results in qualitatively
different support for ix)lice while they perform their duties than in reactive
patrol. He suggests that in reactive patrol, citizens call for service in order to
protect their vested interest and thus provide support for and legitimacy to the
police intervention. In distinction, when the police, are the initiating unit. Reiss
suggests that there is little support either for the officer who might have difficulty
in the situation or for later processing — for example, testifying. Reiss further
suggests that the aggressive patrol practices of proactive patrol results in an
ever increasing residual, comprised of persons who have had negative encounters
with police personnel.'
3 President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Criminal Jus-
tice. Task Force Report: Science and Technology, p. 2.5.
■•James S. Kakalik and Sorrel Wildhorn, AidH to Decisionmaking in Police Patrol. A
report prepared for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Rand Corporation,
Santa Monica, California (1971) p. 72.
° Ibid. p. 73.
* Albert Reiss, The Police and the Public, Sfale University Press, pp. 94-97.
7 Ibid. p. 57-62.
604
PURPOSE OF THE EXPERIMENT
The proactive-reactive patrol deployment strategy is a rigorous and systematic
attempt to test the outcomes of different patrol strategies. As such, it allows for
a cost-benefit analysis of varied strategies to determine the most effective methods
of undertaking patrol. Further, it allows the department to develop "mixes" of
strategies dependent upon fluctuations in need. If, for example, it were determined
that reactive strategies are most effective in addressing certain types of problems
and proactive more effective in others, then, strategies could be developed con-
sistent with the most effective approach to the problems to be attacked. If it is
fact that reactive strategies are most effective in certain areas, then specific
tasks would be developed for patrol personnel when not responding to calls for
service.
Also included in this experiment is an attempt to establish the quantitative
relationships between speed and type of police response and the crime rate, deter-
rence of crime, probability of an on-scene apprehension, and the availability of
witnesses and citizen satisfaction.
This experiment seeks to meet the obligation of a professional organization
to test its methods in the light of developing theory and new methodologies.
Since the effectiveness of preventive patrol is not self evident and because the
capacity of the department to deal with crime is a central function, the experi-
ment fulfills a real professional need that has not been addressed by other police
agencies. In addition, the proposed analysis of response time outcomes would,
hopefully, lead to the development of an empirically based queuing system to
guide the dispatch and deployment of patrol personnel. The implementation of
this experiment would help to maintain a climate of innovative creativity and
self evaluation, not only on the part of the department as a whole but also with
individual oflicers. Tliis experiment would develop the capacity of the Kansas
City Police Department to organize and carry out rigorous valid experimentation
with only a minimum need for outside expertise.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY
Fifteen beats were designated as the experimental area. These beats were
computer matched into similar triplets on the basis of crime, called for service,
ethnicity, median income and transience of population. Each triplet was reviewed
by task force personnel. Attempting to establish a geographic dispersion that
permitted maintenance of acceptable response time, one beat in each triplet was
designated as proactive, another reactive and still another as control. Three
distinct subarea groupings of five beats each were, therefore, defined. (Figure #1
depicts a mock distribution in which R =: reactive, P = proactive, C = control
and numerals designate common triplet beats. )
""(1)
^3)
^w
^2)
^(5)
^(2)
^^(3)
^(1)
^W
■^(1)
^(2)
^4)
^(5)
^(3)
^5)
Figure I.— Simulated deployment configuration
Different levels of patrol coverage were assigned to each sub-area. The deploy-
ment sought to maximize the range of potential coverage to measure differential
impact between extremes of patrol intensity.** In the control beats, the standard
* Deployment modifications relate only to regular patrol units. The purpose of the experi-
ment as seen by the task force was specifically to ascertain the effectiveness of their divi-
sions' personnel. Specialized units such as the TraflBc, Tactical, K-9 and Helicopter Units
continued to work in the test area using the same allocation patterns as prior to the
experiment.
■605
departmental assignment of a single one man unit with sixty-five percent com-
mitted time would be maintained. In the reactive areas, patrol units would enter
the area in response to calls for service. Uncommitted time would be directed
toward preventive patrol on the beat perimeter or in an adjacent proactive beat.
In addition to increased patrol coverage provided by the car assigned to reactive
areas, the regular units assigned to the proactive beat would be supplemented by
up to five support cars. The resulting effect would be a level in the proactive areas
four to five times the regular level of patrol intensity. The experimental deploy-
ment pattern would be maintained for one year.
Crime trends would be monitored weekly to identify experimentally induced
variations and to insure that the public is given the greatest possible protection.
Monitoring activities will be conducted through the use of data provided by the
Crime and Traffic Analysis Unit and by daily printouts from Data Systems. If
trends emerged which gave early indication of results which jeopardized the
public, steps would immediately be taken to return to standard patrol.
To provide baseline information concerning the activities of patrol personnel,
task force personnel have developed and will conduct a task analysis. This self-
reporting system will precisely identify services delivered in the experimental
area. It will specify the actual amount of time committed to preventive patrol
and other activities in each of the test subareas. In addition to its contribution
to baseline data, this analysis will provide valuable input to the improvement
of training and personnel programs.
Present patrol patterns will not be altered to change response time. Instead,
the chance variation in response time will be analyzed for the full range of
called for services. True response time will be determined by combining dispatch
response time (elapsed time between receipt of call and dispatch) and field
response time (elapsed time between dispatch and arrival of the patrol units).
Incident analysis and follow-up surveys will be undertaken in a random sample
of called for services. That sample of incidents, stratified by response time, will
be drawn from ca.ses recorded by the observers. Officer, citizen and observer per-
ceptions of the same incident will he compared to identify elements of citizen
satisfaction.
HYPOTHESES TO BE TESTED
The following hypotheses have been stated for the purpose of measurement
throiigh the experimental methodology outlined below :
A. Preventive patrol
1. Crime, as reflected by victimization survey and offenses known to the police,
will not vary by type of patrol.
2. Citizen perception of service will not vary by type of patrol.
3. Citizen cooperation in processing of incidents will be greatest in the reactive
sub-area.
4. Citizen complaints about police service will be greater in the proactive
sub-area.
5. Citizen fear and behavior as a result of fear will not vary by type of patrol.
6. There will be no variation in the types of calls for service by type of patrol.
7. Traffic accidents will increase in the reactive areas.
8. Traffic violations vpill increase in the reactive areas.
B. Response time
1. As response time increases, on-scene apprehension of offenders will decline.
2. As response time increases, the extent and nature of injuries to victims will
increase.
3. As response time increases, the availability of witnesses will decrease.
4. As response time decreases, citizen dissatisfaction with police service will
increase.
5. As average response time in an area decreases, the incidents of predatory
street crime will decrease.
MEASUREMENT OF OUTCOMES
Effort to measure the differential impact of the alternative levels of patrol
coverage will employ analysis of departmental data, structured observation and
survey research. Measurement techniques and dependent variables are depicted
in Figure II.
606
The analysis of Kansas City Police Department data will compare dependent
variables between the three subareas, as well as for the twelve months preceding
the experiment. Pre and post-test observations will be conducted on traffic flow
patterns m the three subareas. Observers would ride with police officers to assess
the effects of differential patrol stances, proactive or reactive, on patrol personnel
and the effects on those designations on encounters with citizens. The peace-
keeping and order maintenance are elusive and difficult to quantifv. Observation
will be utilized to ascertain the effects of differential patrol strategies on such
peacekeeping activities as order maintenance in tavern areas, school vicinities
crowd control, etc. Systematic observation of these kinds of activities would be
mfil!. /I ?""°^ ^^t ^""^"^ ^^""^^^ «^ ^^^ experiment to note what changes
ought take place in such activities.
lil ^
i ^
LU
Lil
3
LU
§ ^
>
H
<:
o
OS
i607
One of the great concerns the department has in developing the Proactive-
Reactive Patrol Experiment is the response of community residents and business-
men to this exi^erimeut. One thousand two hundred households will be interviewed
in the experimental area before the commencement and at the close of the project.
Tlie surveys will seek to determine whether the citizens' perceptions of the
quality of police service vary in response to differential patrol strategies. These
surveys will seek to measure change in terms of the citizens' fear of crime, the
citizen awareness of the police presence, a change in the victimization rate, and
generally what happens to citizen satisfaction as a result of the various strategies
attempted.
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
1. Victimization
A victimization survey will be executed as a portion of the instrument deliv-
ered to 1200 households and 160 businesses before and at the close of the experi-
ment. This component will be employed to compare crime variations in the
alternative subareas. The survey will permit analysis of reporting variations re-
sulting from the different patrol strategies.
2. Crime indices
A crime index will be developed using a model similar to the model developed
by Peter Bloch. Qualifying incidents include murder, forcible rape, robbery,
aggravated assault, burglary, larceny over $50 in value, and auto theft. Crime
will be weighted according to seriousness and by deterability. These decisions
win be made in terms of seriousness and deterability. Street crimes will be
weighted heavily under the assumption that they are usually thought to be
affected by preventive patrol. Armed robbery will be weighted especially heavily
since many believe that it is the most single accurately reported crime and
further that it may be susceptible to iK)lice preventive patrol.
S. Community satisfaction
As part of the community and business surveys, data will also be gathered on
merchant^ resident and consumer satisfaction with police services. A survey
instrument has been developed which attempts to obtain other than stereotype
responses toward the police. Wherever possible, questions about views of police
officers will be directly related to actual experiences. (One of the reasons why
citizen attitudes tow^ards police seem to be independent of the police services is
that questions about police services have tended to be global rather than tied to
actual experiences. ) In addition, consumer satisfaction will also serve as a critical
measure for the response time component of this proposal.
^. Calls for services
A random sample of calls for service from the three areas will be analyzed to
determine if there are significant differences both within and between the areas.
Seasonal variations will have to be considered in the "within area" comparisons.
5. Fear
The community and commercial surveys will attempt to establish how fearful
the community is and what behaviors have resulted from that fear. Subsequent
analysis will attempt to see if this varies significantly within or between subareas
as a result of the experiment.
6. Arrest and processing ratios
Police records will be analyzed to determine if there are significant variations
in the proportion of arrests as to citizen initiated contacts versus police initiated
contacts. Successful processing of a case including willingness of victims and
bystanders to testify will also be related to type of patrol and response time.
7. Complaints about police service
Complaints will be analyzed to see if there are differences within and between
areas. This analysis will include complaints as to police conduct as well as citizen
satisfaction with the patterns of patrol activities in their area.
8. Traffic
Traffic will be monitored on a random time basis to see if violations vary as a
result of different patrol strategies. An accident/pattern of patrol ratio will be
developed.
608
Northeast Patrol Division : Action Review Panel
The approach utilized by the Northeast Patrol Division in addressing its task,
the development of innovative patrol strategies, has brought that task force to
the point it is prepared to implement a specific project design internal to the
patrol division. The task force has also amassed, extended information from all
division personnel on the nature of perceived internal and external patrol prob-
lems. This was accomplished by task force personnel meeting in small groups with
all field personnel. The process appears to have strengthened both the quality of
the problem identification and the involvement of field oflScers. The process, how-
ever, was extremely time consuming. As a result, the task force has just embarked
upon the planning of a second project for which continued planning assistance is
requested.
The first issue of concern focused upon by the task force was conflict emerging
from police-citizen interactions in stress situations. That conflict manifests itself
in several ways including physical assaults and verbal hostilities between police
and citizens, resisting arrest, and complaints against police oflScers. Conflict
between police and citizen is very complicated and often exaggerated. Half
truths and irrational statements are often assumed as the truth. Allegations are
made by all persons involved. At times, the citizen is clearly at fault. At times,
the police oflBcer is at fault. Many times, however, the fault caimot be clearly
ascribed. It is possible, at times, that conditions of such that no blame or judg-
ment should be made.
The problem is further aggravated when no attempt is made to resolve the
conflict. When this occurs, some citizens question the integrity of the police depart-
ment in dealing with its oflicers. On the other hand, field personnel may feel that
they are being used as a "scapegoat" when a conflict situation occurs.
In an effort to establish a viable alternative for the resolution of this problem, it
is proposed herein that an action review panel, modeled after the Oakland Violence
Prevention Unit, be established in the Northeast Patrol Division. The proposal
rests on several assumptions that are articulated below. It is unique not only
because the interest and the desire to undertake such a program emerged at the
field level, but also because it seeks to go beyond the confines of the Oakland
project to consider a wider range of problem behavior and to consider the appli-
cability of such a process to field supervision and recruit socialization.
BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT'
The action review project seeks to establish a non-punitive review process,
totally apart from normal disciplinary channels and lasing a delicate balance of
peer assistance and peer pressure. Task force personnel intensively reviewed the
Oakland Violence Prevention program, and two Kansas City patrolmen were
permitted to attend action review panels in that city.
The Oakland Violence Prevention Unit was initiated in 1969. It emerged from
a joint research project into the problem of assaults upon police oflBcers. The
research data generated several interesting conclusions :
1. A small percentage of police oflBcers account for the vast majority of com-
plaints and resisting arrests.
2. There was no correlation between the "hard working oflBcer" and the num-
ber of complaints that were likely to be registered against him.
3. Complaints against an oflBcer, generally, reached their peak within the
first two and a half years on the job.
The Oakland Violence Prevention program was initiated departmentwide.
The structure and operations of the program were similar to those outlined
below with the exception that the criteria for the identification of potential
interviewees was restricted to the number of resisting arrests charged by the
oflBcer. Departmental personnel reported a universally favorable opinion of the
program. That department is presently designing a more effective evaluation
procedure to identify the unit's effectiveness.
Certain assumptions concerning the nature of the police-citizen conflict and
behavior modification have been made prior to the task force proposal to initiate
an action review panel. First, all policemen are not mean and brutal to the
public ; however, some policemen have greater diflBculties in resolving stress
situations. These diflBculties may lie in the myths and expectations concerning
police action, a lack of knowledge concerning better alternatives in a situation
or the unconscious attitudes the oflBcer may feel towards certain types of
individuals.
609
Second, most policemen desire a peaceful and workable solution to a problem
involving stress and conflict. However, much consideration is given to what
one's fellow officers may think. Unfortunately, this consideration is often an
error and is propagated by the myth "a good cop is a mean and tough cop."
Third, peer group influence is often more important to the patrolman than the
attitudes of his supervisors or commanders.
Fourth, the punitive-orientation of traditional police disciplinary procedures,
coupled with public hostility in performing police functions and an interdepend-
ence of held personnel in dangerous situations have devel()i)ed walls of secrecy
between field personnel, their command and civilian complaint agencies. In addi-
tion, field officers will not openly express their disapproval of actions by fellow
policemen. The existence of these barriers preclude open identification and
resolution of problems in the patrol force.
Fifth, it is extremely diflScult, if not impossible, to change individual's atti-
tudes. Behavior modification is a more appropriate goal for the project.
Sixth, behavior modification can only be achieved when the subject plays an
active role in the problem analysis and accepts the legitimacy of the "treatment
plan."
Seventh, if true professionalism is to develop in the police field, one of the
things that must be accomplished is the establishment of a sense of duty to and
for one's colleagues and an autonomous mechanism to review their performance.
OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT
The action review panel exists for one purpose, that is simply, to help the
oflScer arrive at the best alternative of action in a stress situation. OflScers will
be asked to sit before a panel of his peers to jointly look at his records, reports
and problems when it appears that his well-being is being threatened by his
behavior. The program should benefit the ofiicer in the street and his superiors.
If behavior has been affected positively, the officer's actions and performance on
the job will be improved, thus making his job more secure and less strenuous.
Improved ability in resolving conflicts should decrease physical attacks on his
person. Few complaints should be lodged against the officer. And the self-image
of the police oflScer should be heightened.
It is anticipated therefore, that the project will :
1. reduce the number of complaints filed against police oflScers ;
2. reduce the number of assaults on police personnel ;
3. reduce the number of police-citizen encounters that require an officer to use
physical force or that result in verbal confrontation ;
4. increase an officer's knowledge of alternatives to be employed in stress
situations, thereby resulting in more effective and appropriate problem resolution ;
5. increase the patrolman's self-esteem and job satisfaction ;
6. explore the feasibility of utilizing the action review process at supervisory
levels ;
7. explore the value of the action review process as a means of affecting im-
proved recruit .socialization by providing a better understanding of peer ex-
pectation!*, by establishing a forum in which the new officer can discuss personal
problems encountered with police role conflicts and the working environment,
and by exposure of the young recruit to a wider range of experienced officers.
PROJECT METHODOLOGY
As mentioned above, officers will be requested to sit witli the panels of their
peers to discuss their records, reports and problems in an effort to seek alternative
courses of action when it appears that a continuation of certain behavior poses
a threat to the officer's well-being. That threat may appear in such forms as as-
saults on or complaints against the officer, resisting arrest, civil suits, criminal
prosecution or civil rights action, suspension or termination of employment.
No fixed formula will be utilized to identify potential interviewees. Instead, a
numl)er of sources of information will be employed. An officer may be a.sked to
meet with the action review panel :
1. if an officer has three resisting arrests (Fonn 100) on file in the Internal
Affairs Unit within a one year period ;
2. if an officer has three complaints lodged against him in a one year period ;
3. if an officer's commanding officer, sergeant or co-worker has volunteered
information to the project director that would indicate the officer is developing a
610
behavioral trend toward violent or aggressive attitudes in performing his duties,
which if not corrected, could lead to formal complaints ;
4. if the officer is involved in a situation which is considered severe or receives
a great deal of notoriety involving violence or violation of the code of ethics. ( In
cases such as these, it is felt that the project director should review all informa-
tion available, and then make a determination as to whether the action review
program could be of possible benefit to the ofiicer. ) ;
5. if an oflScer requests the opportunity to meet with the panel, recognizing a
need for self-improvement.
In the panel discussions, an attempt will be made to delve into the reports,
records, or other information that reflects the nature of the behavior in question.
The implications for continuation of that behavior will be considered, patterns, if
present, will be identified and alternative responses in each case will be consid-
ered. The conclusions of the panel may not necessarily be critical. Where tliere is
no doubt that the action taken by an officer was the best possible at that time, the
officer will be supported and encouraged.
Attendance at the action review panels will l)e restricted to patrolmen. No
written transcripts or recordings of the meetings will be made. The basis of the
entire program is the knowledge that each officer will be able to discuss matters in
a completely confidential surrounding. The most important single aspect of the
success of the project is the security of the information gained in the panel. It is
imperative, therefore, that the information obtained be available to tlie panel
director only.
The project director will have access to all information including allegations
filed with the office of Citizen Complaints and Internal Affairs Investigations, in
order to prepare the information necessary to conduct a panel meeting. The project
director will have the sole responsibility for information collection, the repro-
duction of information necessary for panel members and for securing the confi-
dential information at the end of a review.
Due to the importance of the security of information obtained in the panel, the
department will implement procedures and rules pertaining to solicitation and
divulgence of confidential material. In any case where it is found that information
has been divulged, it will be the function of the project director to bring the facts
to the attention of the Chief of Police for consideration of disciplinary action.
In addition to securing the necessary information for the conduct of the panel
and reporting to the Chief of Police any violation relate<l to the divulgence of
information, the project director, a patrolman, will maintain a profile of each
officer in a division in an effort to identify emerging patterns. The project director
will be notified immediately by the office of Citizen Complaints and the Internal
Affairs Unit of any complaint lodged against a member of the Northeast Patrol
Division. The action review process, however, will not be initiated imtil the
Internal Affairs investigation has been completed. When the project director has
determined that a panel is necessary, it will be his responsibility to schedule the
se.ssions and notify all participants. In relation to the latter, he will also be
responsible to appropriately match the panel membei-s to the individual case.
The action review process is not a staff function of the staff unit. The program
must maintain the integrity in the idea that it is for the benefit of street patrolmen
and is conducted by patrolmen. For this reason, the panels will be conducts away
from headquarters in the conference room of the Northeast Patrol Division Task
Force office.
For the same reason, the selection of the prf>ject director is critical. The task
force established the following qualifications for the project director:
1. Extensive and present field experience in patrol ;
2. Credibility with other patrolmen ;
3. Experienced in the complaint process as a result of past experience and
behavior ;
4. Familiar with the action review concept and process.
A project director has subsequently been chosen.
The initial action review panel has been selected. The members chosen for tliat
panel were recognized opinion leaders of each of the shifts and met the first three
criteria srtated for the project director. For the first panel, it was also felt it was
6i;i
necessary to have individuals who supported, in principle, the concept of the
action review panel.
The initial i>anel will consist of seven members, the project director and two
representatives of each shift. Each panel member will serve as an interviewee
during the course of the training session in which Oakland police officers and psy-
chologists consultixnt will serve as trainers. Intensive training of the panel will be
conducted during the month of June. It is anticipated, that the panel will as a
unit conduct approximately ten interviews. After that point, officers who have
been interviewed will be used to fill some of the panel slots.
TENTATIVE PROJECT EVALUATION
E\'aluation design assistance has not yet been made available to the Northeast
Patrol Task Force. The paragraphs that follow, therefore, reflect tentative
thoughts on project evaluation. The nature of the problem under focus and the
j)r(X"ess to be used by the action review panels set significant constraints on
evaluation. It can be assumed that an extended period of time in excess of one
year will probably be required to get measurable results back on the panel's
affects. Also, because non-patrol personnel will not be permitted access to the
panel sittings and because transcripts and recordings will not be maintained,
any effort to analyze the patterns of interaction in the panels must remain the
responsibility of patrol personnel, particularly the project director. This will
mandate specialized training for that individual in small group process and
transactional analysis.
Because the integrity of the project rests so heavily on confidentiality, the
identity of the officers interviewed will not be made known to the evaluators.
Any efforts to statistically track the subsequent behavior of officers interviewed
must rely upon the project director for the data collection. As with the analysis
of the panel interviews, the evaluator will be required to rely upon non-identifiable
aggregate information provided by the project director.
It is presently thought that evaluation components might include the following :
1. The establishment of a comparable control group of officers in one of the
other two field divisions, this would permit the separation of the precise impact
of the panel sessions from the effects of the natural maturation process on the
officer's behavior. The use of this approach, however, would require that sig-
nificant consideration be given to the differences in background variables, such
as command, demography, etc.
2. If the panel process is utilized for recruit socialization, a similar control
group could l>e established in another division, or a random selection of subjects
could be drawn from the substantial number of new recruits of the Northeast
Patrol Division.
Measurement of changes to be utilized in conjunction with these control groups
could include an analysis of citizen complaints, departmentally initiated com-
plaints, an analysis of resisting arrests and hindering arrests, supervisory ratings,
and perceived job satisfaction. A consumer satisfaction survey of individuals who
had contact with police personnel as a result of called for services might be
randomly drawn on a before and after, or an experimental and control group
basis to identify citizen perceptions of the quality of service in such encounters.
An alternative technique that might be utilized in evaluation would be the
delivery of a critical incident questionnaire to the Northeast Patrol Division
personnel and the command staff of the department, a random sample of the two
remaining patrol divisions. The critical incident analysis would serve the dual
purpose of identifying incongruities between command and field perception with
regard to actions and stress situations, and provide a mechanism to identify a
wide range of alternatives in handling stress situations. In addition, the critical
incident data would serve as a baseline against which increases in the knowledge
of alternatives or changes in opinions as to how stress situations should be
handled might be measured for Northeast Patrol Division personnel in general
and panel subjects and participants, in particular. These shifts could be compared
with personnel in the o^her two patrol divisions.
612
Northeast patrol division
Implementation project duration June 1, 1972 to June 30, 1973 :
Consultant and Control Services :
Violence prevention consultants (2 Oakland, California i>oIice
officers), 8 days at $75 $600
Process training and on-going consultation (psychologist/psy-
chiatrist), 10 days at $150 1, 500
Consultant travel and related expenses :
Airfare 2 at $220 440
Lodging and meals (3 days at $45) 360
Local travel 100
Consultant total 3,000
Office and administrative expenses : ^
Office space (13 months at $200 per month) 2,600
Furniture 2, 100
Telephone (13 months at $50) 650
Office supplies (tape recorder, tapes, imblications, et cetera) 1,500
Office and administrative expense total 6, 850
Implementation total 9, 850
Evaluation (the evaluation design for this project has not been es-
tablished. However, as presently conceived, the evaluation will rest
heavily on the project director and already existent police data cost :
therefore, should include evaluation design assistance, training of
police personnel as evaluators and statistical analysis) O
Project planning (June 1, 1972 to Aug. 31, 1972) :
Consultant and contract services :
Problem Identification and Design (Larry Sherman), 20 days
at $75 1, 500
Travel and related expenses 10 airfares at $160 1, 600
Food and lodging 20 days at $45 900
Consultant total 4,000
Task force travel :
Field visits to other cities (airfares 4 at $150) 600
Food and lodging (16 days at $45) 720
1,320
Project planning total 5,320
Budget totals :
Action review project implementation 10, 000
Action review project evaluation 225,000
Continued project planning 4, 400
1 OfQce and Administrative costs represent joint costs with continued task force project
planning.
2 To be determined (approximation, $25,000).
Central Patrol Division : Interactive Patrol Project
The Central Patrol Division encompasses Kansas City's central business dis-
trict and low income residential areas containing a significant iX)rtion of the
city's minority group population. The quality of the relationship between the
Kansas City Police Department and community residents lias remained the focal
point of the division's task force efforts. Concern for tliat relationship stemmed
from several observations. First, police personnel Avorking in the field frequently
encountered overt hostility even when performing police functions of a service
nature. Second, citizens living in portions of the community appeared apprehen-
sive about dealing with the police even though they lived in fear of criminal ele-
ments. Pervading fear affected the quality of life in the entire neighborhood. It
613
tended to disrupt patterns of communication and organization that would foster
greater community cohesiveness and the subse<iuent resolution of many problems'
facing the neighborhood. That fear or reluctance to deal with the i>olice affects
both citizen's willingness to report suspicious events and to follow-up criminal
occurrences with testimony or complaints.
To study this problem more fully, the Central Patrol Division Task Force
focused its i>lanning activities on a small area in the division. That area has had
the third highest crime rate in the city and contained a myriad of social problems
including housing, welfare, health and transi>ortation. The residents were pri-
marily young, black, low income and highly transient. An area with similar char-
acteristics was identifietl and set aside as a control area in anticipation of the
subsequent needs of program evaluation.
The first program design took on the form of a neighborhood-oriented police
unit that sought to provide follow-up to called-for-services and a.'-sistance to com-
munity groups in resolving neighborhood problems. It was hoi>eti :hat the follow-
up would improve citizen satisfaction with police service as well as make more
effective use of referrals, bring to bear community resources in meeting services
needs and interrupt continuing patterns of conflict such as those between land-
lord and tenant or l)etween husband and wife. Initially, it was envisioned that a
sufficiently large number of men would be infused into a small area, tliereby i)er-
mitting sufficient time for patrol follow-up as well as unstructured contact with
neighborhood residents. These contacts were to be made by patrol officers on
walking beats and through their attendance at community meetings. These con-
tacts, it was envi.sioned, would enable the officers to identify and assist com-
munity interests in resolving neighborhood concerns that could over time, develop
into police problems. An example of such a problem in the test area is abandoned
housing. Abandoned buildings are neighborhood eyesores as well as hazards for
young children.They provide a base of operations for juvenile gangs planning
crime, using drugs and fence stolen property. These buildings have been set on
fire, and the responding police and firemen become the targets of rocks and
assorted projectiles. By assisting the community in the rapid demolition of such
buildings, for example, the Central Patrol Task Force hoi)ed. that the police might
change their image in the community and also avert subsequent problems that
might emerge at those locations. The nature of the assistance to be provided by
the Interactive Patrol Unit, however, was not clearly defined.
Preliminary Program Development Activities
In pursuing design efforts, the task force sought to identify citizen attitudes
toward the police. A random sample of citizens in the test area were interviewed.
Their responses proved .startling to task force personnel. A significant majority of
the respondents in an area, that was viewed as ho.stile by the police, reported a
high regard and respect for the Kansas City Police Department. At the same
time, the majority expressed the opinion that they were living in what they re-
garded to be a relatively safe area.
Paralleling the survey work, task force members studied several other human
service delivery ser\-ice systems. They inter\'iewed persons working in community
service agencies and outlined a list of seventy-five social problems that the agency
personnel regarded as .significant in the target area. To l>ecome sensitized to com-
munity i^ersiJectives, one task force member lived with a group of black parolees
for three days in the ghetto of another mid-western city. The survey results, the
review of other service delivery systems, and the experience of the task force
member in the ghetto led to several additional but significant conclusions. First,
there was little congruence between the police and community perspectives about
an area, its problems or potentially remedial solutions. This lack of congruence
was the greatest ob.stade to effective police-community relations. It is the pri-
mary cause of apprehensiveness on both sides when confronting one another.
Second, the mood of the community was such that it was likely to reject any
program in which it has not had a hand in planning or designing, regardless of
its "rightness."
PHASE I PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Subsequent task force deliberations resulted in an action program design that
is an experiment in proactive planning. It proposes to take program planning
from division headquarters to a task force office in the community. It seeks to
significantly involve community residents in problem definitions and patrol
strategy development. If successful, the program will yield a fully documented
ei4
process for designing and introducing neighborhood oriented policing programs
into other areas.
As a first step in the project, the task force personnel will meet as a panel
with line staff from service agencies working within the test area. These panels
will serve the two-fold purpose of defining cultural characteristics of the test
area and of narrowing down the list of social problems to those considered most
pervasive and most critical. The former information on culture will be reviewed
by task force members and a reference manual on community culture will be
prepared.
The refined problem listing will be used to construct an open-ended survey
instrument that will be delivered simultaneously to police personnel and to
community residents. That instrument will focus on a limited number of prob-
lems, thereby permitting the respondent the opportunity for indepth responses.
The responses will be analyzed to determine both the frequency and intensity
with which specific concerns are expressed.
As noted above, the test area residents were surveyed concerning their attitudes
toward the police. A modified version of the same survey instrument will be
delivered to division personnel to identify both the police view of the community
and their perceptions of the police image as held by the citizens.
Police and citizen respondents, who are both representative of the points of
view expressed, will be asked to meet in small, focused group panels to discuss
their replies in greater detail. Police and community residents will sit together
in the panels. They will be chaired by a moderator who is experienced in focused
group discussions. In all, it is anticipated that there wall be a minimum of five
such panels on the subject of police image in the community. On the neighbor-
hood problem analysis, it is anticipated that there will be a minimum of ten
such panels, each one focused on a specific topic problem.
Task force members will monitor all panel sessions. As the result of the
discussions, they will prepare reports on the police image and neighborhood
problems. These reports, coupled with crime and called-for-sen'ice statistics for
the test area will become the basis upon which specific operational strategies
will be developed. The task force will prepare a preliminary patrol design.
Panels vpill be reconstituted from the individuals who had participated in the
preceding sessions. Again, police and community residents will be mixed and
the sessions will be chaired by the moderator. They will review the proposed
patrol strategy. Aspects of the program will be revised or eliminated in accord
with the panel responses. Subsequently, a detailed program evaluation design
will be prepared.
Through this joint planning program implementation model, it is anticipated
that tlie task force will have involved 50 police oflScers and 100 test area
residents in the development of the new patrol strategy. If these collaborative
efforts have been successful, the program should be embraced by the field person-
nel, and a base of community support should help pave the way for full-scale
implementation. If community collaboration in planning proves viable, further
community involvement will be sought for the training of the Interactive Patrol
Unit personnel. In addition, the interactive planning process will hopefully
sensitize the community to the complexity of the police function.
To date, consultant assistance to the task force has been provided by Bart
Reiner with MRI assistance on evaluation issues. Reiner and Don Heiman, the
MRI representative, have established close working relationships vpith task force
personnel. Heiman has provided valuable structure to task force planning. In-
tensive short term technical assistance is required during the first phase of the
project. MRI will, therefore, assume the role of implementation consultant in
accord with the proposed budget.
SUMMABY
The Central Patrol Task Force proposes to undertake a proactive planning
process that will actively involve neighborhood residents and a significant num-
ber of division personnel in patrol strategy development. The process, if success-
ful, vdll generate a receptive environment for the introduction of a neighborhood-
oriented policing program as well as a documented process for developing and
introducing similar programs in other areas.
615
Central patrol division: interactive patrol {Nov. IS, 1912-June 30, 191/3)
Personnel, Secretary : a.^ oaa
7 months at $600 ?4, 200
Fringe benefits 15 percent ^^
Total personnel '^' ^^
Contract services, Midwest Research Institute (see attached
breakdown) ^^' ^^
Consultants : „^ __ ^ ,.-/%
Program design consultants (Bart Reiner) 10 days at $175 1, iM
Moderator (40 days at $100) 4' QQQ
Consultant total ^-«;:r ?' 1^
Travel, consultant travel and related expenses (10 days at $120) 1,200
Space, office space (7 months at $400) ^' ?^
Supplies '?9
Equipment, office furniture ^' '^""
Other :
Telephone '^
Reproduction *^
Graphics t:^
Publications f^
Petty Cash i,wo
Total other ^' ^'^^
Project total 45, 000
TABLE I— PROPOSED CENTRAL TASK FORCE MRl BUDGET
Survey Program
Expense category Explanation budget budget Total
'^rtecUoSatcr... -...- U34hr _..... R256.80 $13,738.24 $15,995.04
Research assistant 880 hr - - 8,964.50 8,964.50
Survey assistants 232 hr... 2,363.36 2,363.36
Total direct labor..... 2,246 hr : 4.620.16 22,702.74 27,322.90
'''IrnryTaia report... 50 pages; 25 copies.. --- jOO 00 100 00
Primary data report.... do - 00-0° ™-gg
Preprogram report do 00.00 OU.UU
Final program report... .---do ---- - ^""-"Q '"""""
Total printing costs
Miscellaneous
400. 00 400. 00
leS^::::::::::::::::::::::::iocentsper-paBe:::::::::::: h nocoo noo.oo
Sr- --- ltc'o"'°"^ ■- -^^ 10,050.^00^ 1,050.^00^
J^ litertime:::::::::::::::::::: Wperhour;;::::: ^2,000.00 --,...-..- ^iimi
Weighted fee... 5.8 percent ..- _ 267.97 1,348.66 1-348.66
Contract surveyors - Estimate 23,000.00 '3,000.00
Grant total -- 9,888.13 25,601.40 35,489.53
• Billed separately.
2 Weighted fee percentage does not apply.
KA.NSAS City, Missouri Police Department Sky Alert
SKY ALERT (Aerial Law Enforcement Response Team) is one of Kansas
City's newest crime fighting efforts. SKY ALERT utilizes six Hughes Model 300
helicopters. Each helicopter is equipped with high intensity flood lights that gen-
erate up to 1.2 million candle power in a beam that will light up the darkest
616
street or alley. The helicopters are aloft, weather permitting, throughout the day
or night, seven days a week. Kansas City is a pioneer in the night use of heli-
copters for routine patrol.
SKY ALERT is a versatile support tool to ground oflScers. Yearly helicopter
oflBcers respond to thousands of incidents, assists in arrests, detect and report
fires, locate occupied stolen automobiles (resulting often in arrests) and make
water rescues. The helicopter is unparalleled as an observation platform ; roof-
tops, industrial grounds, railyards and parks are exposed to aerial scrutiny
(34,805 buildings searched in 1972 alone) .
SKY ALERT provides district patrol an extra dimension and increased effec-
tiveness (5,550 flight hours of crime prevention patrol during 1972). Helicopter
oflScers cover far more territory, observe activity invisible to ground units and
easily overtake fleeing vehicles (74 times in one year). As a ground/aerial team,
helicopters direct ground units to the exact location of activity.
SKY ALERT increases officer security. With rapid response, the presence of
a police helicopter overhead acts as a distinct and positive deterrent to the pos-
sible assault of ground oflBcers by suspects (helicopters assisted in 1,738 car
checks and 539 pedestrian checks during 1972). As a support vehicle, the heli-
copter has greatly increased the dimension of effective police work.
The majority of funds for the SKY ALERT team of six helicopters and the
newly erected 71000 square foot heliport have been provided for by Federal
grants. The heliport stands on a five acre site of Municipally owned land in
eastern Kansas City. It provides hanger space for the six ships, oflSce space for
flight crews, an air-conditioned workshop for the air craft mechanics, as well
as a parts storage area and a large locker room. The heliport also provides a
unique venture for law enforcement agencies, as many agencies are required to
utilize existing airport facilities
SKY ALERT flight plan preparation and subsequent evaluation is conducted
by Kansas City's Crime and TraflSc Analysis I^nit. The most recent evaluation
was prepared January 25, 1973, and provides the following comments regarding
SKY ALERT effectiveness :
First, directed helicopter patrol, i.e., helicopter patrol which utilizes smaller
patrol areas (D.P.A.'s) and Specific time frames is more effective than random
patrol. Further, helicopter patrol, when properly directed, is a valuable tool
which may result in significant decreases in certain types of serious crime.
The following crimes were studied during the evaluation period and are be-
lieved to be the most preventable with the aid of helicopter patrol : Residence
Burglary. Non-Residence Burglary : Auto Theft, Armed Robbery, Strong-Arm
Robbery; and Larceny (Purse Snatch). Decreases were noted in all but two
categories of the selected crimes The two exceptions were auto theft and larceny
(purse snatch).
An important point to note is that while the total known (or reported) crimes
in Kansas City decreased 10.6% during the last six months of 1972 as compared
to the same period in 1971, the known crimes in the D.P.A.'s decrea»ed 26.2%.
Again, it is important to stress the fact that much is to be learned about heli-
copter patrol and its effects on crime. It is felt with more time devoted to this
study in the future, great strides can be made.
Kansas City, Missouri Police Department, Alert II
Law and order in Kansas City is maintained by the Kansas City, Missouri
Police Department, the twenty-second largest police force in the United States.
Comprised of approximately 1,700 personnel, the force yearly processes 110,000
arrests, investigates 40,000 reported offenses, responds to and records 26,000
vehicle accidents and answers 405,000 calls for services. The Communications
Center, operating on seven radio frequencies, originates or responds to eleven
million radio transmissions per year, an average of one transmission every 2.7
seconds.
The urgent need to process information with precision and rapidity influenced
the selection of the computer telecommunications system. The computer system
commenced operations in 1968 to meet the information needs of the oflScer in the
field.
The system was given the acronym "ALERT" (Automated Law Enforcement
Response Team). The computer functions as an invaluable aid to the oflScer in
the field, and computer technicians adjust their work load to the needs of the
6|17
police operations system. The computer system itself is said to be a "Real Time"
system because the information files reflect "real life" or constant, up-to-date
status of wanted persons, stolen vehicles and abstract criminal histories.
ALERT serves all regional area law enforcement agencies and those civil
agencies involvetl in the criminal justice process. A total of forty-seven agencies
are interfaced with ALERT including : Twenty-six police departments, six county
sheriffs, the Kansas and Missouri Highway Patrols, the Kansas City Municipal
Court, the Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney, the Jackson County Juvenile
Court, the Kansas City Parole Office, the Kansas City Prosecutor's Office, the FBI,
the Federal Postal Inspector, the Law Enforcement branch of Internal Revenue
and the Missouri State Patrol Office. At present, 115 data communications termi-
nals are interfaced into the police computer system.
The police computer is interfacetl with MULES (Missouri Uniform Law En-
forcement System) and with FBI Computer in Washington. These interface
systems provide law enforcement agencies in the Kansas City region with relay
services to the state and national files concerning all nationally known felonies
of wanted i>ersons, stolen vehicles, stolen property, stocks and bonds. An average
of 5,000 commimications are exchanged between the Kansas City police computer
and the FBI computer every twenty-four hours.
Utilizing the Law Enforcement Manpower Resource Allocation System
(LEMRAS), the department is improving the effectiveness of current police re-
sources by concentrating the available forces throughout the 316 square miles
of Kansas City. The LEMRAS System has shown that the greatest need for
responding to "call for services" exists between 11 :00 p.m. Friday night and
1 :()0 a.m. Saturday morning. Therefore, approximately 65 police units are totally
committed to responding to "call for services" with an average of twenty-four
minutes spent on each call. Studies of calls for services predicted by the
LEMRAS System compared with actual occurrences indicate a 95 percent
accuracy rate by the computerized system.
Kansas City implemented a computerized Police Planning System with the
acronym of "COPPS". The system is capable of projecting resource requirements
for up to 10 years in advance. The system allows the department to take a
"indepth view" of future resource requirements measured against projected new
or revised programs. COPPS is modern day management technique to meet
expected change, produce desired change and to prevent undesired change.
In January, 1972, the Computer System was renamed ALERT II to denote
the involvement of the system into criminal justice operations. We have identified
the following 48 specific areas where the computer is used in effective support
of the criminal justice process :
1. Consolidation of all active area criminal warrants/wants into one regional
criminal activity data bank with the capability of retrieving all facets of a
case history.
2. Cross indexing the criminal data bank for acce.ss by: (a) subject's name,
(b) alias, (c) moniker or nickname, (d) vehicle license number, (e) vehicle
identification number (or arrest/criminal identification number).
3. Response within ten seconds of information needs of the officer in the field.
4. Provision of information to district officers and intelligence officers on
movements of organized crime subjects.
5. Provision of follow-up information to the local parole officers on persons
interviewed by the district officers and identified by the computer to be in parole
status.
6. Production of reports which reflect the identity of selected suspects by
fingerprint classification.
7. Provision of statistical data of high vehicle accident areas so that com-
manders may realign patrol forces to increase enforcement in high accident
areas.
8. Preparation of a list of wanted persons by residence address within beat
for the district officer.
9. Provision of automated abstract criminal records for the district officer's
informational use and investigative purposes.
10. Provision of summaries of investigator's work by ca.se, by category of work
within cases, etc.
11. Development and provision of current payroll budgetary information and
projected cost of specific projects to the i)olice administrator.
12. Provi-sion of the capability to search computerized files liy "method of
operation" or "method of commission of a crime incident" in an effort to identify
likely suspects based on previously established criminal patterns.
95-158 O — 73 — pt. 1 40
618 ,
13. The simulation of a new police programs and accurate determination of
the cost factors and resource requirements far as ten years in advance through
a Computerized Police Planning System ( COPPS ) .
14. Daily recording of crime indicies and reporting of these indicies to each
Patrol Division Commander.
15. Time reporting and analysis of specialists' work levels in the Crime
Laboratory Center.
16. Prediction with 95 percent accuracy of police "call for services" workload
within each of the 620 "police reporting areas."
17. Provision of computerized access to the civil index of all accidents, traflBc/
parking tickets and offenses.
18. Calculation of uniform crime statistics for transmission to the FBI.
19. Computation of statistical information related to the National Safety
Council Accident System.
20. On-line access to vehicle license registration and drivers license history
for the state of Missouri.
21. Transmission of messages to ALERT, MULES, and national LETS message
switching systems.
22. Access to national wanted files maintained in the National Crime Informa-
tion Center at FBI headquarters.
23. Retrieval of FBI rap sheet summaries from the FBI computer through the
ALERT System.
24. Provision of a daily crime summary report and daily clearance summary
report which allows patrol oflScers the opportunity to evaluate crime trends
and police effectiveness on a daily basis.
25. On-line data entry of all offense, arrests, accident traffic and dispatch
statistics as well as on-line payroll entry, handling, punching and tabulating of
statistics.
26. Provision for storing of criminal identification number, FBI number and
fingerprint classification as additional identifiers and capability to search based
on fingerprint classification codes.
27. Traffic accident information which allows for designation of locations
which need selective enforcement and the evaluation of selective enforcement
patrol operations.
28. Calculation of crime information which allows for analysis of related
problems within the city.
29. Production of robbery evaluation information which is utilized to prepare
monthly reports for the Board of Police Conamissioners.
30. Provision of answers to specialized requests for historical data related
to specific crimes and offenses by location.
31. On-line entry of cases filed by the prosecutor in Magistrate and Circuit
Court.
32. Preparation and printing of Magistrate Court dockets and witness notifica-
tion cards.
33. On-line retrieval of prosecutor information by name, prosecutor's case
number, Magistrate Court case number, and Circuit Court case number.
34. Printing a report of dispositions made by the county prosecutor.
35. Grading analysis of the Sergeants Examination.
36. Preparation of a court journal for Municipal Court. (This allows for the
orderly handling of traffic cases docketed in the Municipal Court).
37. Automatic preparation of warrants for arrest of citizens when they fail
to appear in court as a result of on-line entry of cases when failure to report in
court is involved.
38. On-line recording of dispositions from cases tried in the Municipal Court.
39. Production of a daily report for the Alcoholic Safety Action Program
(ASAP) cases in Municipal Court, the prosecutor's office and the probation de-
partment on cases involving drunk driving charges.
40. Production of a daily report on pre-sentence information usually given
to the judges. (The report reflects information from police, probation, and
Missouri Director of Revenue files. )
41. Production of a listing produced for Juvenile Court of all referrals from
the Kansas City Missouri Police Department Juvenile Unit.
42. Printing of arraignments for Juvenile Court.
43. Preparation of a court docket for Juvenile Court.
44. Production of employee paychecks, payroll records to the city treasurer
and withholding tax information to the State and Federal revenue offices.
45. Case report number accountability for the Kansas City Missouri Police
Department.
619
46. Traffic ticket accountability to the police department and to the Municipal
Court of Kansas City, Missouri. ^ . ,. „^ „,o„to^ ,rohi
47 Printing and dissemination of a report in license sequence of wanted vehi-
cles for those police agencies who do not have access to computer terminals.
48 Production of "reminder notices to citizens on parking violations after ten
'^'raslon'ofpri;LTls■a phrase often heard when people debate the issue of
computers'^ It is a matter of grave concern. One that law enforcement is keen y
avv^?e of and which professional administrators have vowed would not be
vrolated in the implementation of this new technology. AH mattere programmed
[n?o the computer mu.st be fully documented and all questions of legitimacy are
resolved in favor of the individual, prior to entry. , ^ „
RelSnsiveness to the public it serves has been the goal of police agencies
and cJZutertihnology increases that possibility to a degree that challenges
?he imStiorRapid response to calls for ser.-iee is facilitated by resource
allocation svstems utilizing the vast capabilities of the computer for calculating
?ariablS^in the environment. Service and responsiveness were the primary con-
siderations in the design of ALERT, and it is to this end the system is dedicated.
Kansas City, Missoubi, Police Department, Alert III
During the first six months of 1972, the department conducted extensive field
tests of fwo brands of mobile field terminals^ In an ^^^^^ to extend the mpabU^^^
ties of the ALERT II computer system to the field officers, ALERi 111 is beinfe
designed ALERT III consists of mobile computer terminals to be placed in each
of the department's field units, providing each officer direct on-line entry and
''Ton'lfwi^nTa^re' the projected uses of the ALERT III mobile terminals as set
forth in a funding proposal :
I. Direct-Entry Reporting
A. Offense Reports
B. Field Interrogation
C. Disturbance History Data
D. Activity Reporting
II. Criminal Subject Information
A. Criminal Record
B. Suspect Generation System
1. Description File
2. M. O. File
3. Moniker File
4. Field Interrogation System
a. Name
ft. Description
c. Vehicle
C. Informant Contacts
D. Street-Crime Intelligence
1. Suspect Tracking
2. Associate Tracking
E. 10-31 Backgrounds
III. Fluid Pre-Positioning System
IV. Referral System
A. Problem/Resource Query
B. Referral Qualifications (Case Tyije, Income, etc.)
C. Contact Persons
D. Service Backlog
V. Neighborhood Profile/ Activity Planning Model
A. Cultural Demographic Information
B. Address Listings
C. Community Resources
1. Neighborhood Organizations
2. Public Services (Schools, Welfare, etc.)
3. Referral Agencies
4. Community Leaders/Contacts
620
V. Neighborhood Profile/Activity Planning Model— Continued
D. Police Activity
1. Crime Patterns
2. Called for Service Patterns
3. Field Interrogation History
4. Police Hazards/Special Security
5. Special Police & Security Systems
6. Police Characters/Associates
7. Informant Contacts
8. Area Objectives
E. Floor Plan Layouts
VI. Field Reference System
A. Legal Reference
B. Policy Reference
C. Procedure Reference
D. Case Status
VII. Disturbance Intervention Profile
A. Location Histories
1. Prior Disturbances/Police Actions
2. Probable Disturbance Cause
3. Probable Participants
B. Disturbance Prone Individuals
1. Physical Description
2. Social History Profile
3. "Trigger" Words/Subject
4. Prior Police Actions (Arrest/Referrals)
VIII. Court Scheduling System
A. Docketing
B. Continuances/Status Review
C. Notification
IX. Emergency Response System
A. Operation Barrier Assignments (By Elapsed Time)
B. Special Operations Deployment Configurations
C. Emergency Route Selection
1. In-Routes (Crimes-in-Progress)
2. Transport Routes
a. Best Routes (Time of Day, Accidents)
6. Dangerous Intersections
D. Traffic Light Control
X. Police Resources System
A. Equipment Location
B. Vehicle Maintenance System
C. Skills Inventory
SYSTEM SPINOFFS
I. Program Development.
A. Crime Specific Planning
B. Problem Specific Planning
C. Area Planning
D. Personnel Evaluation — Training and Development — Personnel Re-
source Identification
II. Interagency Transaction Data
A. Criminal Justice System
B. Governmental Services
C. Private Agencies
III. Computerized Criminal Investigation
IV. Evaluation
A. Reporting Data
B. Survey Research Data
C. Observation Data
V. Public Information/Education
VI. Resource Allocation
VII. Planning-Programming-Budgeting-System
621
4)
u
(U
>^
U «
u
(U
u
CO
(U
<u
H
z
Z
o
o
o
H
en
CO
•
■
<
<
1
<
<
M
4!
■
<
-<
-
-
•
<
60
.
c
C
■H
lU
o
c
1-1
<U
■H
o
•H
m
u
1-1
m
60
C
01
e
u
4)
o
c
O
4)
n
a
■H
O
kl
•H
o.
O
p
4-J
0)
c
Oi
iH
0)
Li
>. 60
O
(0
o
«)
<u
3
(U
3
1-1 C
<u
>.
o^
.-4
u
<u
•a
oi
o
*J -H
C
w
•H
(U
o
(U
0)
C -u
M
0)
(u
U-l
c
JS
>>
41
W U
1-1
u
O
01
nl
o
o
OS
O
u
nj
cu
1.1
cr:
^
to
a
U O.
O
u
Pm
Li
<u
4)
O 4)
4)
u
•a
•o
3
iJ
60
U
0) Oi
O.
01
iH
U
.H
u
u
ki
•rt
L4
U)
<4-l
3
rt
(U
10
3
<u
1-1
•H
3
u
iH
0)
■H
iH
o
B
O
Q
W
o:
(<<
PQ
H4
Q
o
w
Oi
l-l
•
M
•
•
>
•
>
•
M
•
M
><
•
M
M
M
M
>
>
M
M
M
>
1
Q
ai
a:
o
</>
Q.
O
_1
LU
>
OH
LU
<C
622 ,
[Reprinted from Electronics, Dec. 6, 1971]
Kansas City To Test Digital Patkol-Cab Links — New IBM TELESPRiNTEni
To Be Matched Against Mobile Terminal In Competition Foe Police
Data Contbact
Looking to link its patrol cars with the giant National Crime Information
Center (see p. 108), the Kansas City, Mo., police department will match a
new and unannounced IBM teleprinter unit against a new digital mobile ter-
minal built by tiny Kustom Electronics Inc., Chanute, Kansas, in tests beginning
early next year. IBM will be paying its own way, while Kansas City is paying
Kustom $90,000 for its system.
Waiting in the wings with its commercially available Digicomp 300 will be
Sylvania Sociosystems division of Mountain View, Calif. — the third choice, prin-
cipally because of the smallness of the Sylvania 32-character CRT display.
The size of the test hardware award to Kustom — a big one for law enforce-
ment electronics — indicates not only that Kansas City is serious about becoming
a leader in exploiting technology, but also that Kustom has a clear lead in the
competition. Kansas City police officials won't confirm, as competitors will, that
IBM makes the terminal slated for January 1972 trial. IBM won't talk either,
citing the Justice Department's prohibition against discussing unannounced
products under the company's antitrust consent decree.
Nevertheless, IBM's participation is a subject of open discussion in the mar-
ketplace and indicates the giant computer maker is seriously considering entry
into the field of mobile terminals for law enforcement agencies.
No voice. "With capabilities of the device we're seeking, we'll probably stop
using voice communications, except in emergency situations," a Kansas City
police official explains. The department expects eventually to pay about $3,000
apiece for some 250 mobile units, and will have decided by July 1972 which com-
pany can do what needs to be done.
Kustom's synchronous phase-shift keyed system uses a 256-character Bur-
roughs plasma display [Electronics, July 5, p. 36]. That avoids the potentially
hazardous high-voltage and implosion problems plaguing CRT displays, says
Charles E. Gillam, manager of the company's data communications division.
The purchase price includes six mobile terminals, and the computer interface
and associated equipment that allows the officer in the car to access his data base
directly ; up to 200 additional mobile terminals can be added to the package for
$3,200 per unit.
The system moves messages at 1,200-plus bits per second on top of the rf
carrier, says Gillam, 224 characters at a time in a burst mode of less than
one second. It also has a carrier sense that avoids breaking into voice transmis-
sions, using a random retransmission technique. For security reasons, to avoid
having hard copy in an unoccupied car, the system queues messages in the
computer, to be retrieved when the patrolman returns, Gillam says.
Motorola, too. Meanwhile, Motorola Communications division in Schaumburg,
111., is demonstrating its first system tied to the national data base. Patrolmen
of Allen County, Ind., in 10 cars equipped with the company's VP-100 tele-
printer unit speak their inquiries to the county's radio dispatcher, who punches
the request into the IBM 360 regional data base, which can access state and
Federal crime information centers. The system responds directly to the vehicle
initiating the request, bypassing the dispatcher, via the central encoder of the
printer system and a network operating on a frequency different from the voice
system's.
623
SPECIAL OPERATIONS DIVISION TASK FORCE
Apprehension Oriented Patrol Deployment Project
Major Manfred Guenther
Captain William Ponessa
Ptl. Darrel Stephens
Ptl . Dan Dawson
Ptl. James Connor
Mr. Fred Newton
Mrs. Jan Nash
Mr. Ted Bogdanovich
624
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction . .
' 1
I. Criminal Information Center
2
II. Location Oriented Patrol
4
III. Perpetrator Oriented Patrol.
6
IV. Evaluation ...
7-8
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Total Arrests of C.I.C. Subjects ;^8
C.I.C. Subjects Arrested One or More Times 2g
C.I.C. Inputs. . .
20
C.I.C. Requests. . .
21
C.I.C. Input Graph .
22
C.I.C. Request Graph .
23
625
-1-
INTRODUCTION
The Special Operations Division Task Force began in the
Fall of 1971. Each squad of the Tactical Unit was involved by
researching areas that they felt could help in reducing crime.
This research resulted in the Apprehension Oriented Patrol
Deployment Project. The project has three parts: the Criminal
Information Center, Location Oriented Patrol, and Perpetrator
Oriented Patrol .
This report will give the reader a description of each
part of the project. A section of the report is devoted to
the evaluation of the project and it will explain what is being
evaluated .
626
-2-
CRIMINAL INFORMATION CENTER
The purpose of the Criminal Information Center is to collect,
correlate, analyze, and disseminate information relative to crime
and criminal activities in the Kansas City area. The Center was
designed for use by the entire department and other agencies in
the metropolitan area.
The Center began by identifying the most active Burglary
and Robbery subjects. These subjects were identified by each
of the throe patrol divisions, the Investigations Division, and
the Tactical Unit. A notebook was published that contained mug
shots and the most current information available on the subjects.
These notebooks were distributed within our department and other
law enforcement agencies in the area. The notebook introduction
requested that officers contact the center when they stopped,
observed, or arrested any of the subjects in the book. The
introduction also requested that officers forward any information
that they had in regards to criminal subjects or criminal activities.
The C.I.C. also searched for other sources of current
information. We started receiving copies of the Field Interview
Card and filed them in such a manner that the information on the
cards could be retrieved. While this system worked fairly well
and the information was available on a twenty-four hour basis,
it still was somewhat cumbersome. The Task Force worked with
627
-3-
the Computer Systems Division and the Administrative Analysis
Unit and through collective efforts, a computerized Field Inter-
view Reporting System has been designed. This system is not on
line as yet, but it is expected that it will be operational
within the next two weeks.
The Center maintains other files that contain information
that we feel would be of help to field and investigative officers.
The C.I.C. is attempting to gather and make use of the
criminal intelligence information that is available in the minds
and notebooks of officers in the entire metropolitan area. If
this source can be successfully tapped, the usefulness of the
C.I.C. will be unlimited.
Graphs and tables of the inputs and requests handled by the
Criminal Information Center are attached.
628
LOCATION ORIENTED PATROL
Location Oriented Patrol is defined as the assignment of
areas, as determined by crime information analysis, with a view
toward maximizing apprehensions.
The Tactical Unit squads receive their assignments from
the Crime Analyst, who is a part of the Task Force Staff. The
analyst reviews burglary and robbery reports daily. Assignments
are made in areas that show some type of pattern in the offenses
committed or where a large number of offenses are committed.
The analyst prepares an assignment folder that contains the
offenses, a breakdown on how and when the crimes are occurring,
and the type of property that the victim is losing. The analyst
also reviews the C.I.C. files and includes any suspect information
available in the assignment folder.
The Location Patrol model has been hampered somewhat due
to the unavailability of the computer. We had planned to use
the computer a great deal more for developing areas to work and
suspects .
An alarm system has also been developed for use by the
Location squads. The system is designed to be monitored by
mobile units and it is portable so it can be moved with the
crime trends. The alarm system has encountered numerous problems.
The first set of alarms have been tested several times and have
629
-5-
not met with our standards. We are continuing to work with
Burstein-Applebee in an effort to eliminate the problems in
the system so they can be deployed. It is difficult to say
when the alarms will be ready to go in the field. We have more
tests scheduled and we should be able to determine when they
can be deployed based on these tests.
630
PERPETRATOR OF^IENTED PATROL
Perpetrator Oriented Patrol is defined as the assignment
of officers to high probability criminal suspects with a view
toward apprehending such suspects in the commission of a crime
or by gathering enough information about these subjects to make
a case on crimes that they have committed in the past. This
involves spot surveillances on known criminal subjects and the
development of informants that have knowledge of the subjects
and their activities.
This has been our most difficult patrol strategy to imple-
ment. There have been several problems that were not anticipated
when establishing the model. Changes have been made from time
to time in an effort to improve the strategy. One of the most
significant changes made was freezing two squads on the model.
The original plan called for rotating the squads on the strategy
every two months. After six months of the experiment, the
decision was made to freeze the squads on this assignment for
the remaining six months . This was done in an effort to increase
productivity of the squads. It usually took a squad two or
three weeks to become accustomed to this type of patrol, which
was a waste of time. We also lost productive time when a squad
was nearing the end of their perpetrator assignment. It was
determined during the first six months of the project that some
631
7-f
officers did not particularly care for working the perpetrator
model .
This particular strategy is also the most difficult to
evaluate. The squads are able to gather intelligence information
that has been used by other elements of the department. It
is difficult to measure the significance of this information
unless it directly leads to an arrest.
EVALUATION
The following pages contain the hypotheses that are being
tested in the Apprehension Oriented Patrol Deployment Project.
The project has experienced numerous difficulties with the
evaluation during the six months. A full time evaluator joined
the staff in February to work exclusively with the project.
This has solved most of the evaluation problems . A six month
evaluation report is being prepared. There will be a delay
in this report because most of the data will come from the
computer. The project programmer has not had the opportunity
to retrieve the information because of the Field Interview
System.
632
-9-
Hypothesis r/l-INTCRClZMTION I^ATIJ:
A) Interception rates for- the crimes of R &• B will
be hi^^her for POP and LO)^ than for other <liv.
B) Interception rate for POP will be higher than
LOP.
C) Both POP and LOP will result in increased in-
terception rates compared to earlier time per-
iods for the Tact Unit and these increases v/ill
be greater than those for other divisions.
D) Increase in interception rate will be greater
for POP than LOP,
Information :
1 ) R & B arrests at or near the scene of the
cr.xnie
Statistic :
1) Analysis of variance
Source :
TAC
LOP
POP
T.U.
(pre) 1970-1
1971-2
1972-3
Oth«
PROACTIVE PATROL
REACTIVE PATROL
CONTROL PATROL
DIRECTED PATROL
CENTRAL PATROL DIV.
Statistics :
1) Analysis of variance
633
-10-
llypothesis #2-CLEARA\CE RATI-:
l) Clearance rate will be highei- for POP and I-OP
than for other division.^.
2) Clearance rate will be higher for POP than
LOP.
3) Both POP and lOP will result in increased
clearance rates compared to earlier time
periods for the T.U. and these increases will
be greater than those for other divisions.
4) The increase in clearance rate will be greater
for POP than for LOP.
Information :
Average number of crimes that are attributed to the
suspect per arrest made (other than crime for which
S is arrested) .
Source :
TAG
LOP
POP
• T.U.
(pre) 1970-1
1971-2
1972-3
OTHERS
PROACTIVE PATROL
REACTIVE PATROL
CONTROL PATROL
DIRECTED PATROL
CENTRAL PATROL DIV .
Statistics:
l) Analysis of variance
634
-11-
Mypothesis #3-VI0LRNCE:
1) The actual and potential violence involved in
the crimes for which R &• B ai-rests are made by
POP and LOP will be higher than that involved
in the crimes for which arrests are made by
other divisions.
2) Violence level of POP arrested crimes will
be higher than that of LOP arrested crimes.
3) Violence level of POP and LOP arrested crimes
will increase as compared to earlier time per-
iods for the T.U. and these increases will be
greater than for those of other divisions.
4) Increase in violence level wilD be higher for
POP than for LOP.
Information:
1) Proportion of crimes in which a gun is used.
2) Proportion of crimes in which a weapon other than
a gun is used .
3) Proportion of crimes in which physical force is used.
Source:
TAC
• LOP
POP
T.U.
(pre) 1970-1
1971-2
1972-3
OTHERS
PROACTIVE PATROL
REACTIVE PATROL
CONTROL PATROL
DIRECTED PATROL
CENTRAL PATROL DIV.
Statistics:
635
-12-
Hypothesis #4-PKlOR ARRESTS:
1) Average number of prior arrests for R & B will
be higher for those arrested by POP and I.OP than
by otlier divisions. —
2) Average number of prior arrests will be higher
for those arrested by POP than by LOP.
3) Average number of prior arrests of those arrested
by POP and LOP will increase compared to earlier
time periods and these increases will be greater
than those for other divisions.
4) Increase in average number of prior arrests will
be greater for POP arrested suspects than for
LOP arrested suspects. —
Information;
1) Average number of prior arrests for R &■ B gathered
from KCPD files.
Source:
TAC
LOP
POP
T.U.
(pre) 1970-1
1971-2
1972-3
OTHERS
PROACTIVE PATROL
REACTIVE PATROL
CONTROL PATROL
DIRECTED PATROL
CENTRAL PATROL DIV.
Statistics:
636
-13-
Hypot.liesis /-' 5-COMHLAIiYTS
1) Tlie POP and lOP stratagLes will no^ produce an
increiase in citizen complainLs atjainst jjolice
officers compared to eai'lier time pei'iods.
Inf or'mation :
l) Average number of citizen complaints received by
the personnel assigned to POP and tOP wili be ob-
tained from department sources. These will be
cornpared to comparable data for the prior two years
to ascertain the difference created by the insti-
tution of the two new programs.
Source :
1) TAC: LOP 2) TAG: prior two years
POP
Statistics :
637
-14-
Design # 2-Perpetrator Oriented Patrol
Hypothesis rl-
Each form of surveillance will have an effect
on the possibility of arrests but the effect of
P.O.?. surveillance will be greater than that
of patrol division observations.
Information:
Number of arrests of C.I.C. Subjects
Statistics:
Analysis of variance (on percentages)
638
-15-
Design #3
Hypothesis =1-
A lower average number of robberies and burglaries
will be reported in the L.O.P. Beats than in the
Control Beats.
Hypothesis #2-
As compared to 1970 and 1971, a greater decrease in
the average number of robberies and burglaries re-
ported will occur in the L.O.P. Beats than in the
Control Beats.
Information;
Average number of robberies and burglaries in control
and experimental areas.
Statistics:
Analysis of variance
639
-16-17-
Desi^n ^4-C.I .C.
Hypothesis rl-
The existence of the C.I.C. will result in an
increase in arrests per crime reported.
Information:
1970-number of crimes for which an arrest is made.
1971-number of crimes for which an arrest is made.
1972-number of crimes for which an arrest is made.
Hypothesis #2-
The existence of the C.I.C. will result in an
increase in "good" arrests.
Evaluation Procedure:
Good Arrest-
1) cases prosecuted/cases presented for prosecution.
2) convictions/cases prosecuted.
Supplemant to C.I.C. Evaluation:
1) Increase in usage over time measured by:
a) XuTiber of i.nputs per month.
B) Number of requests per month.
2) Quest ionaire to those who make requests:
A) Was information helpful?
B) Would you use it again?
640
rr>
ro
•fe?.
m
ro
' —
■—
u
<
!>.
t^
H
eg
04
o
H
oo
CO
H
U
fcj
►-3
a
CO
o
o
o
Q
CO
H
CO
•^
5
<
o
a
s
<
O
H
>>
rj
C
a
1-3
u
s:
-p
tN
t^
•P
CO
a
3
■fe^
vO
^
CD
<
o
o
O CM
O
O
o
O
•H
nj
C
-P
■p
O
G
•H
H
c
o
+J
3
>
•H
■H
C
r-l
P
M
:=
O
O
L
L,
o
O
o
P
p
(-^
(0
nj
o
P-
fH C
o
SUBJECTS
IN
TAC
NOTEBOOK
YES
NO
641
-19-
Ss IN PATROL NOTEBOOK
YES NO
A.
B.
38.5
29-6
C.
D.
55.5
14.8
Percentage of subjects arrested one or
more times .
A . Subjects in Patrol and Tac ' s notebooks ,
B. Subjects in Tac' s notebook only.
C. Subjects in Patrol notebook only.
D. Subjects in Neither set of notebooks.
642
-20-
CRIMINAL INFORMATION CENTER INPUTS AND REQUESTS
8 Month Period
August 1972 - March 1973
*
INPUTS: Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.
N" . E . P . D .
11
23
16
13
13
9
26
128
S.P.D.
8
17
12
26
17
18
8
31
C.P.D.
12
11
6
9
7
9
31
38
Investigations
3
5
4
4
5
9
21
17
Tactical Unit
3
18
18
23
15
80
40
22
Traffic Division
0
1
0
3
0
0
1
1
L.E.I.U.
0
1
2
5
5
1
0
1
Reserve Unit
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
Citizens
0
7
20
3
0
1
1
3
A.T.F.
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
1
F.B.I.
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
Jackson Co. Sheriff
0
3
2
2
0
2
12
10
Johnson Co. Sheriff
0
1
1
0
3
24
20
22
Independence P.O.
0
9
7
0
0
0
6
1
B.N.D.D.
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pinpoint Patrol
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gladstone P.D.
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
Warrant Service
0
2
1
2
0
1
0
2
Dispatchers
0
1
0
1
2
0
2
0
Fairway P.D.
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
Lees Sununit P.D.
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
Riverside P.D.
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
Leawood P.D.
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Other Agencies & Units
5
0
1
5
16
30
23
34
TOTAL 46 108 105 100 88 185 192 312
643
-21-
RE0UE5TS: Aug. Sept . Oct . Nov. Dec ■ Jan. Feb. Mar.
N.E.P.D.
3
X
5
6
11
12
26
78
S.P.D.
1
2
1
8
7
12
22
14
C.P.D.
3
3
5
4
5
14
28
58
Tactical Unit
2
6
2
3
31
68
76
51
Investigations
0
4
7
0
6
10
16
23
L . E . I . U .
0
1
2
3
6
5
1
7
Independence P.D.
0
3
1
2
0
4
3
1
Gladstone P.D.
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
Johnson Co. Sheriff
0
2
0
2
3
1
1
2
A.T.F.
0
0
1
1
3
0
1
0
Clay Co. Sheriff
0
0
1
■ 1
0
0
0
0
B.N.D.D.
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
Other Agencies & Units
2
0
4
9
19
2?
22
49
TOTAL 11 24 30 41 91 151 207 283
644
I
I
■m
H
a.
H
a:
u
H
z
u
o
o
o
2
M
<
H
H
rn
t^
o
O
u
(0
0--
■p -P
c en
o d
„ 3
U oo <
<
^
\,^
en
u
X
^
z
<
I
^
\
o
w
Q
)
>
O
z
/
U
O
' .
H
Cu
'X
\
<
^
^.
"j-i
o
<-n
O
LO
o
to
o
LO
o
W-)
r^
ij-i
(M
o
r^
>A
CM
o
C^
Ln
CM
C4
CN»
CM
(N
rH
iH
rH
H
1
645
I
CO
I
in
H
en
u
u
2
U
U
2
O
oi
o
2
<
2
CO
u
CO
-p
U oo <
pi
*\
V
CO
ci:
\
\
\
<
\
\
^
to
Q
\
\
\
>
o
2
\
^
U
o
\
\
C5
<
\
LO
O
LO
o
lO
O
>-o
O
l-O
r-v
<~n
CNl
o
t^
uo
CM
O
t^
(N
IM
cs
Cs)
r-t
iH
i-t
iH
o
c<
64^6
Chairman Pepper. We have been made aware of the increasing
keenness of the police departments of this country. There was a time
when some people referred to the policeman as a flat foot, and the
word cop meant just a fellow that walked the beat. We have had
presented splendid evidence this week of the keen intelligence being
employed in many of the police departments of this country today. It
is a good sign for the people who want to curb crime in this country.
My father was a sheriff and police chief and I am proud of what
the police officers and law enforcement officers mean to this country.
As my able colleague indicated earlier, it is our hope we will be
able to send copies of all of these hearings that we have on street
crime, together with our recommendations, to every police department
in the country, to every sheriff's office in the country, and to every
attorney general in the country, in the hopes they will be of some
value to all of those various law enforcement officials.
We thank all the people who appeared before the committee this
week and hope — and believe — the contributions they have made will
benefit us all in the fight against crime.
The hearing is adjourned until 10 a.m., Monday, April 16, 1973,
when we will meet in room 311, Cannon House Office Building.
[Whereupon, at 12 :25 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene
at 10 a.m., on Monday, April 16, in room 311, Cannon House Office
Building.]
o
STREET CRIME IN AMERICA
(CORRECTIONS APPROACHES)
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON CRIME
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
APRIL 9-13, 16-19; MAY 1-3, 8, 9, 1973
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Part 2 of 3 Parts
Part 1.— THE POLICE RESPONSE
Part 3.— PROSECUTION AND COURT INNOVATIONS
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Crime
(Created pursuant to H. Res. 256)
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
95-158 O WASHINGTON : 1973
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office, WashinBton, D.C. 20402
Price .?2.10 domestic postpaid or .$1.75 GPO Boolcstore
Stock Number 5270-01872 ,^n ^0V
SELECT COMMITTEE ON CRIME
CLAUDE PEPPER, Florida, Chairman
JEROME R. WALDIE, California CHARLES E. WIGGINS, California
FRANK J. BRASCO, New York SAM STEIGER, Arizona
JAMES R. MANN, South Carolina LARRY WINN, Jr., Kansas
MORGAN F. MURPHY, Illinois CHARLES W. SANDMAN, Jk., New Jersey
CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York WILLIAM J. KEATING, Ohio
Chris Nolde, Chief Counsel
Richard P. Lynch, Deputy Chief Counsel
James E. McDonald, Assistatit Counsel
Robert J. TrainoRj Assistant Counsel
(II)
CONTENTS
Dates Hearings HEiiD
PART 1. THE POLICE RESPONSE
Page
April 9, 1973 1
April 10, 1973 95
April 11, 1973 275
April 12, 1973 381
April 13, 1973 559
PART 2. CORRECTIONS APPROACHES
April 16, 1973 647
April 17, 1973 725
April 18, 1973 813
April 19, 1973 SOT-
PART 3. PROSECUTION AND COURT INNOVATIONS
May 1, 1973 969
May 2, 1973 1075
May 3, 1973 1143
May 8, 1973 1231
May 9, 1973 1279
Statements of Witnesses
Alexandria, Va., U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Hon. Albert V.
Bryan, judge 1201, 1205
Allen, Milton J., State's attorney, Baltimore City, State's attorney's office,
Baltimore, Md 1233
Alprin, Geoffrey M., general counsel. Metropolitan Police Department,
Washington, D.C 324
American Bar Association, Washington. D.C. :
Ford, Robert C, director, activation program for correctional reform— 939
Hughes, Richard J., chairman. Commission on Correctional Facilities
and Services 939
Skoler, Daniel J., staff director, Commission on Correctional Facilities
and Services 939
Armstrong, William, sergeant, St. Louis, Mo., Police Department 423
Arthur. Hon. Lindsay G.. judge. District Court, Juvenile Division, Min-
neapolis, Minn 745
Baltimore, Md. :
Allen, Milton B., State's attorney for the city of Baltimore, State's
attorney's office 1233
Gersh, Howard B., chief, violent crimes liaison unit. State's attorney's
office 1233
Movlan, Hon. Charles E., Jr.. associate judge. State Court of Special
Appeals 1233,1239
Bannon, James. STRESS unit commander, Detroit, Mich., Police
Department 382, 387
Benfer, Robert A., captain, San Anotion, Tex., Police Department 541, 548
Brand, Richard L., patrolman, Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department-.- 247,250
Brown, Arlyn J., director, Community Services Division, Dallas, Tex.,
Police Department 444, 451
(HI)
IV
Page
Brown, Charles E., patrolman, Kansas City, Mo., Police Department 562, 573
Bryan, Hon. Albert V., judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit,
Alexandria, Va 1201, 1205
Busch, Joseph, district attorney, Los Angeles County, Calif 1077, 1089
California, Los Angeles County, Joseph Busch, district attorney 1077, 1089
Callier, Leroy, patrolman. New York City Police Department 6, 18
Camp, Eugene J., chief of police, St. Louis, Mo., Police Department 423
Casey, Hon. Bob, a U.S. Representative from the State of Texas 1077
Cawley, Donald F., chief, Patrol Services, New York City Police
Department 6, 10, 41
Chamberlin, John D., sergeant, Chicago (111.) Police Department 276
Chicago (111.) Police Department oflScials, panel of 276
Chamberlin, John D., sergeant 276
Crosby, Wayne, community service aide 303
Jungheim, Annette K., community service aide 296
Nolan, Samuel W., deputy superintendent 276
Rottman, Herbert R., lieutenant 287
Churchill, Winston L., chief, Indianapolis (Ind. ) Police Department 136
Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department oflBcials, panel of 247
Brand, Richard L., patrolman 250
Espelage, Howard, captain 255
Goodin, Carl V., chief of police 247
Lind, Carl A., director, program management division 254
Panno, Lawrence C, patrolman 251
Conyers, Hon. John, Jr., a U.S. Representative from the State of Michigan- 381
Crosby, Wayne, community service aide, Chicago ( 111. ) Police Department 276, 303
Crowley, Donald F., sergeant, neighborhood patrol team commander, New
York City Police Department 41, 64
Dallas, Tex., Police Department 444
Brown, Arlyn J., director, community services division 451
Heath, Edwin D., Jr., director, criminal justice interface division 444
DeMuro, Paul, assistant commissioner of after care, State department of
youth services, Boston, Mass 649, 674
Detroit, Mich., Police Department officials, panel of 382
(Bannon, James, STRESS unit commander 387
Martin, Ronald H., patrolman 389
Nichols, John J., commissioner 382
Ricci, John P., patrolman 394
Eisdorfer, Simon, deputy chief inspector. New York City Police
Department 41, 56
Espelage, Howard, captain, Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department 247,255
Fenley, Thomas T., sergeant, San Antonio, Tex., Police Department 541, 545
Fixsen, Dr. Dean, research associate. Achievement Place Research Project,
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kans 868,870
Florida (Tallahassee) Division of Youth Services, Oliver J. Keller,
director 766
Ford, Robert C, director. Activation Program for Correctional Reform,
American Bar Association. Washington, D.C 939
Freeman, Arthur A., deputy inspector, New York City Police Department 41, 85
Garritani, Carl, patrolman. New York City Police Police Department 6, 17
Gillespie, James, attorney, San Antonio, Tex 1281, 1290
Gersh, Howard B., chief, violent crimes liaison unit. State's attorney's
office, Baltimore, Md 1233
Giarrusso, Clarence B., superintendent. New Orleans, La., Police Depart-
ment 95
Glenn, Robert, patrolman, San Antonio, Tex., Police Department 541, 547
Gonzalez, Hon. Henry B., a U.S. Representative from the State of Texas — 1279
Goodc'hild, Lester, executive officer. Criminal Court of the City of New
York 1006
Goodin, Carl V., chief of police, Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department 247
Greene, William Robert, captain, homicide and robbery division, Indian-
apolis (Ind.) Police Department 136,143
Halleck. Hon. Charles White, judge, Superior Court of the District of
Columbia 1143
Page
Hamilton, William A., PROMIS, Office of the U.S. Attorney, U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice 1172
Harder, Dr. Robert, director, State department of social welfare, Topeka,
Kans 860
Head, James, patrolman, Kansas City, Mc, Police Department 562, 564
Heath, Edwin J., Jr., director. Criminal Justice Interface Division, Dallas,
Tex., Police Department 444
Hubert, Frank, lieutenant. Auto Crime Unit, New York City Police
Department 6, 27
Hughes, Richard J., chairman, Commission on Correctional Facilities and
Services, American Bar Association, Washington, D.C 980
Indianapolis (Ind.) Police Department 186
Churchill, Winston, L., chief 186
Green, William Robert, captain, homicide and robbery division 148
Isenstadt, Paul, senior field director, National Assessment of Juvenile
Corrections, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich 818
John Howard Association, Chicago, 111., Joseph R. Rowan, executive
director 795
Jordan, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Representative from the State of Texas 1075
Jungheim, Annette K., community service aide, Chicago (111.) Police
Department 276, 296
Justice, U.S. Department of. Office of the U.S. Attorney, Superior Court
Division :
Hamilton, William A 1172
Work, Charles R., chief _ 1172
Kansas City, Mo., Police Department 562
Brown, Charles E., patrolman 573
Head, James, patrolman 564
Post, James, patrolman 576
Stephens, Darrel W., patrolman 581
Sweeney, Thomas J., task force programs coordinator 562
Kansas (Topeka) Department of Social Welfare, Dr. Robert Harder,
director 850
Kansas, University of, Lawrence, Kans., Achievement Place Research
Project :
Fixsen, Dr. Dean, research associate 868
Wolf, Dr. Montroe M., professor 868,870
Kastner, John H., detective. New Orleans, La., Police Department 95
Keating, Lucy, program development specialist. Department of Youth
Services, Boston, Mass 700
Keller, Oliver, director. State division of youth services, Tallahassee, Fla 766
Leenhouts, Keith J., director, Volunteers in Probation. Royal Oak, Mich 907
Leonard, Robert F., prosecuting attorney, Genesee County, Mich 1053
Lind. Carl A., director. Program Management Division, Cincinnati (Ohio)
Police Department 247, 254
Luhrs, Robert E., deputy inspector. New York City Police Department-- 41, 66
Martin, Rinal L., sergeant. New Orleans, La., Police Department 95, 126
Martin, Ronald H., patrolman, Detroit, Mich., Police Department 382, 389
Massachusetts Department of Youth Services :
Bergeron, Miss, client 700
Hall, Mr., client 700
Keating, Lucy, program development specialist 700
LaBonte, Miss., client 700
DeMuro, Paul, assistant commissioner of after care 649, 674
Pollock, Mr., client 700
Ruth, Miss., client 700
Massachusetts, panel of juvenile corrections exi)erts :
DeMuro, Paul, assistant commissioner of after care. State department
of youth services, Boston 649,674
Miller, Dr. Jerome G., director. State department of children and
family .services, Springfield 649
Ohlin, Prof. Lloyd E., director, Institute on Criminal Justice, Harvard
University, Cambridge 649, 676
Meador, Prof. Daniel J., University of Virginia Law School, Charlottes-
ville, Va 1201
Metcalfe, Hon. Ralph H., a U.S. Representative from the State of Illinois-- 283
VI
Page
Michigan, Genesee County, Robert F. Leonard, prosecuting attorney 1053
Miller, Dr. Jerome G., director, State department of children and family
services, Springfield, Mass 649
Minnesota Department of Corrections, Kenneth Schoen, commissioner 726
Minneapolis, Minn., District Court, Juvenile Division, Hon. Lindsay C.
Arthur, judge 745
Mitchell, Hon. Parren J., a U.S. Representative from the State of
Maryland 1231
Moylan, Hon. Charles E., Jr., associate judge, State Court of Special
Appeals, Baltimore, Md 1233
Mueller, Charles, sergeant. Juvenile Division, St. Louis, Mo., Police
Department 423, 431
Murphy, Patrick V., commissioner, New York City Police Department 6
National Assessment of Juvenile Corrections, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Mich. :
Isenstadt, Paul, senior field director 813
Sarri, Dr. Rosemary, codirector 813
National Council of Juvenile Court Judges, Hon. Lindsay G. Arthur,
president 745
New Orleans (La.) Police Department oflBcials, panel of 95
Giarrusso, Clarence B., superintendent 95
Kastner, John H., detective 95
Martin, Rinal L., sergeant 126
Poissenot, Lloyd J., major 127
Woodfork, Warren G., sergeant 125
New York City, Criminal Court of :
Goodchild, Lester, executive officer 1006
Ross, Hon. David, administrative judge 1006
New York City Police Department officials, panel of 6, 41
Callier, Leroy, patrolman 18
Cawley, Donald F., chief of patrol services 10,41
Crowley, Robert L., sergeant, neighborhood patrol team commander— 64
Eisdorfer, Simon, deputy chief inspector, special operations 56
Freeman, Arthur A., deputy inspector 85
Garritani, Carl, patrolman 17
Hubert, Frank, lieutenant, auto crime unit 27
Luhrs, Robert E., deputy inspector 66
Murphy, Patrick V., commissioner 6
O'Friel, John T., sergeant 6
Rogan, John F., deputy inspector 65
Siegel, Joseph, insi)ector, auxiliary police 67
Tucker, Julia, lieutenant, rape investigation and analysis unit 32, 41
Voelker, Anthony M., deputy Chief inspector 10
Nichols. John J., commissioner, Detroit, Mich., Police Department 382
Nolan, Samuel W., deputy superintendent. Chicago (111.) Police Depart-
ment 276
O'Friel, John T.. sergeant, New York City Police Department 6
Ohlin, Prof. Lloyd E., director. Institute on Criminal Justice, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Mass 649, 676
Panno, Lawrence C, patrolman, Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department-- 247,251
Peters, Emil E., chief, San Antonio, Tex., Police Department 541
Philadelphia, Pa., Arlen Specter, district attorney 972
Phladelphia, Pa., Common Pleas Court, Major Crimes Division, Hon.
Lisa A. Richette, judge 1035
Poissenot, Lloyd J., major, New Orleans, La., Police Department 95, 127
Post, James, patrolman, Kansas City, Mo., Police Department 562, 576
Ricci, John P., patrolman, Detroit, Mich., Police Department 382, 394
Richette. Hon. Li.sa A., judge. Common Pleas Court, Major Crimes Division,
Philadelphia, Pa 1035
Riegle, Hon. Donald W., Jr., a U.S. Representative from the State of
Michigan 1053
Rogan, John F., deputy inspector. New York City Police Department 41, 65
Ross, Hon. David, administrative judge. Criminal Court of the City of
New York 1006
vn
Page
Rottman, Herbert R., lieutenant, Chicago, III., Police Department 276, 287
Rowan, Joseph R., executive director, John Howard Association, Chicago,
111 795
San Antonio, Tex., Police Department 541
Benfer, Robert A., captain 548
Fenley, Thomas T., sergeant 545
Glenn, Robert, patrolman 547
Peters, Emil E., chief 541
Trevino, Arthur, patrolman 546
Sarri, Dr. Rosemary, codirector, National Assessment of Juvenile Correc-
tions, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich 813
Schoen. Kenneth, commissioner, State Department of Corrections, St. Paul,
Minn 726
Siegel, Joseph, inspector. Auxiliary Police, New York City Police Depart-
ment 41, 67
Skoler, Daniel L., staff director, Commission on Correctional Facilities and
Services, American Bar Association, "Washington, D.C 939
Spears, Hon. Adrian, judge, U.S. District Court, Western District, San
Antonio, Tex 1281
Specter, Arlen, district attorney, Philadelphia, Pa 972
Stephens, Darrel W., patrolman, Kansas City, Mo,, Police Department— 562, 581
St. Louis, Mo., Police Department 423
Armstrong, William, sergeant, laboratory division 423
Camp, Eugene J., chief of police 423
Mueller, Charles, sergeant, juvenile divasion 431
Sweeney, Thomas J., task force programs coordinator, Kansas City,
Mo., Police Department 562
Texas, Harris County, Carol Vance, district attorney 1077
Tex., San Antonio, Hon. Adrian Spears, judge, U.S. District Court, Western
District 1281
Trevino, Arthur, patrolman, San Antonio, Tex., Police Department 541, 546
Tucker, Julia, lieutenant, Rape Investigation and Analysis Section, New
York City Police Department 6,32,41
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Pittsburgh, Pa., Hon. Joseph Weis,
Jr., judge 1122
Vance, Carol, district attorney, Harris County, Tex 1077
Voelker, Anthony M., deputy chief inspector. New York City Police De-
partment 6, 10
Volunteers in Probation, Royal Oak, Mich., Keith J. Leenhouts, director.. 907
Walker, William D., reporter, WWL-TV, New Orleans, La 95, 122
Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Police Department :
Alprin, Geoffrey M., general counsel 324
Wilson, Jerry V., chief 324
Washington, D.C, Superior Court, Hon. Charles White Halleck, judge 1143
Weis, Hon. Joseph, Jr.. judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Pitts-
burgh, Pa 1122
Wilson, Jerry V., Chief, Washington, D.C, Metropolitan Police
Department 324
Wolf, Dr. Montrose M., professor. Achievement Place Research project,
University of Kansas. Lawrence, Kans 868, 870
Woodfork, Warren G., sergeant. New Orleans, La., Police Department-- 95, 125
Work, Charles R., Superior Court Division, OflBce of the U.S. Attorney,
U.S. Department of Justice 1172
Yunger, Frank, president, Findlay Market Association, Cincinnati, Ohio. 247, 255
Material Received for the Record
Alexandria, Va., U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Hon. Albert V.
Byrant, judge, prepared statement 1226
Allen, Milton J., State's attorney for the city of Baltimore, State's Attor-
ney's Ofl5ce, Baltimore, Md., prepared statement . 1269
American Bar Association, Commission on Correctional Facilities and Serv-
ices, Richard J. Hughes, chairman, letter to Chairman Pepper, dated
May 21, 1973, with enclosures 965
Armstrong, William H., sergeant. Laboratory Division, St. Louis, Mo.,
Police Department, statement re "The Evidence Technician Unit" 442
vin
Page
Arthur, Hon. Lindsay G., judge, District court, Juvenile Division, Minne-
apolis, Minn., prepared statement 762
Askew, Hon. Reubin O'D., Governor, State of Florida, criminal justice
message to the State legislature 1835
Baltimore, Md., Milton B. Allen, State's attorney for the city of Baltimore,
State's Attorney's Office, Baltimore, Md., prepared statement „ 1269
Bayh, Hon. Birch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Indiana, prepared
statement 865
Bryant, Hon. Albert V., Judge, U.S. District Court of Appeals, Fourth
Circuit, Alexandria, Va., prepared statement 1228
Busch, Joseph P., district attorney, Los Angeles County, Calif., prepared
statement 1118
California, Los Angeles County, Joseph P. Busch, district attorney, pre-
pared statement 1118
Center for Criminal Justice, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass., Prof.
Lloyd B. Ohlin, Research director, prepared statement 691
Chicago (111.) Police Department, Samuel W. Nolan, deputy super-
intendent :
General Order, re community service aide project 810
"Preventive Programs Division Community Service Aides Project" 815
"Report of the Superintendent," dated December 14, 1972 808
Training bulletin of the police department, re community service aide
project 312
Churchill, Winston, chief, Indianapolis (Ind.) Police Department:
"Fleet Plan: Measuring the Effectiveness of the Indianapolis Police
Department" (brochure) 193
"How To Describe a Suspect," re Indianapolis Crime Alert Program.. 165
Prepared statement 160
"Teenagers Want To Know . . . What Is the Law" (brochure) 171
Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department, Carl V. Goodin, chief of police:
"Corn-Sec: New Team for a Safer Community" (brochure) 269
Prepared statement 267
Dallas, Tex., Police Department, Edwin D. Heath, Jr., director, criminal
justice interface division :
"Dallas Repeat Offender Study," report 481
"Operating Procedure" re criminal justice interface division 460
DeMuro, Paul, assistant commissioner of after care. State Department of
Youth Services, Boston, Mass., prepared statement 690
Detroit, Mich., Police Department, John F. Nichols, commissioner, report
re analysis of STRESS 417
Etzioni, Amitai, prof.. Sociology Department, Columbia University, pre-
pared statement 1317
Fixsen, Dr. Dean., research associate, Achievement Place Research proj-
ect. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kans. :
"Community-Based, Family Style Group Homes" (outline) 905
"The Achievement Place Model" 890
Florida (Tallahassee) Division of Youth Services, Oliver J. Keller, direc-
tor, prepared statement 790
Florida, State of, Hon. Reubin O'D. Askew, Governor, message to the State
legislature, re criminal justice proposals 1335
Garmire, Bernard L., chief. Police Department, Miami, Fla., prepared
statement 363
Giarrusso, Clarence B., superintendent, New Orleans, La., Police Depart-
ment, five photographs taken from the room of Mark Essex 130
Goodin, Carl V., chief of police, Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department:
"Com-Sec : New Team for a Safer Community" (brochure) 269
Prepared statement 267
Harder, Dr. Robert C, director, State Department of Social Welfare,
Topeka, Kans., prepared statement 860
Harrison, Reese L., special assistant, U.S. District Attorney, Western Dis-
trict of Texas, prepared statement 1314
Heath, Edwin D., Jr., director, Criminal Justice Interface Division, Dallas,
Tex., Police Department :
"Dallas Repeat Offender Study," report 481
"Operating Procedure," re criminal justice interface division 460
IX
Page
Hughes, Richard J., chairman, Commission on Correctional Facilities and
Services, American Bar Association, Washington, D.C., letter to Chair-
man Pepper, dated May 21, 1S:)73, with enclosures 965
Indianapolis (Ind.) Police Department, Winston L. Churchill, chief:
"Fleet Plan : Measuring the Effectiveness of the Indianapolis Police
Department (brochure) 193
"How To Describe a Suspect," re Indianapolis Crime Alert Program 165
"Teenagers Want To Know . . . What Is the Law?" (brochure) 171
Prepared statement 160
Justice, U.S. Department of, OflBce of the U.S. Attorney, Superior Court
Division, Charles R. Work, Chief, prepared statement 1194
Kansas City, Mo., Police Department, Thomas J. Sweeney, task force pro-
grams coordinator :
"Central Patrol Division : Interactive Patrol Project" 612
"Crime Specific Disturbance Intervention: Program Development
Phase" 593
"Sky ALERT" 615
"Sky ALERT II" 616
"Sky ALERT III" 619
"Special Operations Division Task Force" 623
"The Proactive-Reactive Patrol Deployment Project" 602
Kansas (Topeka) Department of Social Welfare, Dr. Robert C. Harder,
director, prepared statement 860
Keller, Oliver J., director. State Division of Youth Services, Tallahassee,
Fla., prepared statement 790
Leenhouts, Keith J., director, Volimteers in Probation, Royal Oak, Mich.,
excerpts from "Concerned Citizens and a City Criminal Court" 919
Leonard, Robert F., prosecuting attorney, Genesee County, Mich., pre-
pared statement 10^8
Massachusetts Department of Youth Ser\'ices, Paul DeMuro, assistant
commissioner of after care, prepared statement 690
Meador, Prof. Daniel J., University of Virginia Law School, Charlottes-
ville, Va., memorandum dated May 2, 1973, re prepared statement 1225
Miami, Fla., Police Department, Bernard L. Garmire, chief, prepared
statement 363
Michigan, Genesee County, Robert F. Leonard, prosecuting attorney, pre-
pared statement 1<^^
Minneapolis, Minn., District Court, Juvenile Division, Hon. Lindsay G.
Arthur, judge, prepared statement 762
Moylan, Hon. Charles E., Jr., associate judge. State Court of Special
Appeals, Baltimore, Md., excerpts from recent opinion, re waiver of jury
trials 1274
National Assessment of Juvenile Corrections, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Mich.. Dr. Rosemary Sarri. codirector, "Sampling Plans and
Results" (excerpt) 845
National Council of Juvenile Court Judges, Hon. Lindsay G. Arthur, presi-
dent, prei>ared statement 762
New York Citv, Criminal Court of, Hon. David Ross, administrative judge :
"Annual Report of the Criminal Court of the City of New York,"
excerpt ________——— — -- lU^o
"Nine-Month Report of the Criminal Court of the City of New York,"
excerpt iu^4
Press release dated Apr. 22, 1973, re impact of administrative Improve-
ments instituted by Judge Ross for the period January 1971 through
June 1972 1034
Nichols, John F., commissioner, Detroit, Mich., Police Department, report
re analysis of STRESS 417
Nolan, Samuel W., deputy superintendent, Chicago (111.) Police Depart-
ment: ^
General Order, re community service aide project — si"
"Preventive Programs Division Community Service Aides Project" — 315
"Report of the Superintendent," dated December 14, 1972 308
Training bulletin of the police department, re community service aide
project 312
Ohlin, Prof. Lloyd E., research director, Center for Criminal Justice,
Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass., prepared statement 1 6&1
Pepper, Hon. Claude, chairman. Select Committee on Crime, U.S. House of
Representatives, press release dated March 28, 1973, from Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, re decline in serious
crime in U.S. cities 3
Peters, Emil E., chief, San Antonio, Tex., Police Department, report on
cases handled by crime task force, 1970-73 553
Philadelphia, Pa,, Arlen Specter, district attorney, prepared statement,
with attachment 997
Pittsburgh, Pa., U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Hon. JosephWeis"
Jr., judge, prepared statement 1138
Railsback, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Representative from the State of Illinois 323
Ross, Hon. David, administrative judge, Criminal Court of the City of
New York :
"Annual Report of the Criminal Court of the City of New York,"
excerpt IO25
"Nine-Month Report of the Criminal Court of the City of New York,"
excerpt 1024
Press release dated Apr. 22, 1973, re impact of administrative improve-
ments instituted by Judge Ross for the period January 1971 through
June 1972 IO34
San Antonio, Tex., Police Department, Emil E. Peters, chief, report on
cases handled by crime task force, 1970-73 553
Sarri, Dr. Rosemary, codirector. National Assessment of Juvenile Correc-
tions, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., "Sampling Plans and
Results" (excerpt) 845
Specter, Arlen, district attorney, Philadelphia, Pa., prepared statement,
with attachment 997
St. Louis, Mo., Police Department, William H. Armstrong, sergeant, labo-
ratory division, statement re "The Evidence Technician Unit" 442
Sweeney, Thomas J., task force programs coordinator, Kansas City, Mo.,
Police Department :
"Central Patrol Division : Interactive Patrol Project" 612
"Crime Specific Disturbance Intervention : Program Development
Phase" 593
"Sky ALERT" 615
"Sky ALERT II" 616
"Sky ALERT III" 619
"Special Operations Division Task Force" 623
"The Proactive-Reactive Patrol Deployment Project" 602
Texas, Harris County, Carol S. Vance, district attorney, prepared state-
ment 1114
University of Kansas (Lawrence, Kans.), Achievement Place Research
Project, Dr. Dean Fixsen, research associate :
"Community-Based Family-Style Group Homes" (outline) 905
"The Achievement Place Model" 890
Vance, Carol S., district attorney, Harris County, Tex., prepared state-
ment 1114
Volunteers in Probation, Royal Oak, Mich., Keith J. Leenhouts, director,
excerpts from "Concerned Citizens and a City Criminal Court" 919
Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department, Jerry V. Wilson, Chief
of Police, letter dated May 3, 1973, re LEAA grants awarded to police
department 362
Wilson, Jerry V., Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department, Wash-
ington, D.C., letter dated May 3, 1973, re LEAA grants awarded to the
police department 362
Weis, Hon. Joseph Jr., judge, U.S. District Court of Appeals, Third Cir-
cuit, Pittsburgh, Pa., prepared statement 1138
Work, Charles R., chief, Superior Court Division, OflBce of the U.S.
Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, prepared statement 1194
STREET CRIME IN AMERICA
(Corrections Approaches)
MONDAY, APRIL 16, 1973
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on Crime,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice at 10 :20 a.m., in room 311,
Cannon House Office Building, the Honorable Claude Pepper [chair-
man] presiding.
Present: Representatives Pepper, Mann, Wiggins, Winn, and
Sandman.
Also present: Chris Nolde, chief counsel; Richard Lynch, deputy
chief counsel ; James McDonald, assistant counsel ; and Leroy Bedell,
hearings officer.
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
Today we are beginning 4 days of hearings on "Crime in the
Streets — Reduction of Juvenile and Adult Recidivism Through the
Use of New Correctional Approaches."
The history of correctional success in this country has been a dismal
one. The President of the United States has recently characterized
prisons as "colleges for crime.'' Certainly this is doubly true when we
consider the history of juvenile correctional institutions.
Some of you may recall that we had some hearings on juvenile de-
linquency and correctional institutions for juveniles a year or two
ago. We had, among others, Mr. James, who wrote a series of articles
for the Christian Science Monitor. Later on this week, we will view a
film prepared by Mr. James. In the course of his testimony, he stated
that he wondered if it would not have been better for these young
people who were sent to these State institutions for bad conduct not
to have been incarcerated at all.
In other words, the effect of their being incarcerated in these insti-
tutions was more deleterious than it was advantageous.
These hearings will attempt to point out to the Congress and the
country that there are correctional approaches which do offer promise
and hope. We will have some outstanding and most imaginative au-
thors of youth programs in the country appearing today and through-
out this week.
We all know that a very substantial proportion of serious and violent
crimes is committed by juveniles and young adults. We all know that
without treatment, without correction, and without rehabilitation,
these juveniles progress through careers of increasingly serious crime.
(647)
'648
For the next 4 days we will be hearing from expert witnesses who
will come to Washington, D.C., to describe programs which are work-
ing and which are demonstrating that juvenile recidivism can be de-
creased. For example, part of our hearing today will be devoted to
testimony concerning the bold approach adopted by the State of
Massachusetts to eliminate its traditional juvenile institutions. Massa-
chusetts now places juvenile delinquents in small group homes and in
community-based rehabilitation centers. A number of juveniles who
have lived both in institutions and under the new system will offer
firsthand testimony regarding this new approach.
We have the author of that very innovative and imaginative pro-
gram here to be our first witness today.
During the remainder of the week, we will hear of other States
which are attempting through innovative measures to stop crime
careers before they can start. Finally, we will hear from the chairman
and the executive director of the American Bar Association's Com-
mission on Criminal Justice and Services. The chairman, former Gov.
Richard J. Hughes of New Jersej, will describe the programs and
policies of this commission in dealing with this most critical criminal
justice problem.
We think these hearings will be extremely significant and that they
will point out unequivocally that no progress can be made within the
criminal justice system unless and until we solve the longstanding
problem of reducing the number of offenses committed by repeat
offenders and by those who have already been incarcerated in our
Nation's prisons and jails.
We heard a very valuable presentation here from the police depart-
ment of the city of Dallas last week, in which they submitted an in-
depth study of the number of people responsible for the crimes that
were committed in that city over a certain period of time, which em-
phasizes the impression, for anyone who studies the system, that crime
in general, at least most crime, is committed by a relatively few
people, and if we can find out what to do with those relatively few
people, we can make a very significant step forward in the solution of
the crime problem.
I am encouraged by the hearings we held last week into police and
community crime prevention programs.
These hearings have revealed that a relatively few people commit
most of the violent and serious crimes, many of them who start their
criminal careers in their teens.
We were told by Chief of Police Wilson the other day that, in his
opinion, about two-thirds of all of the violent and serious crime was
committed by males under the age of 28 years.
To reduce crime further, the police departments must have more
money for more personnel, better trained personnel, and more research
programs into the causes of crime and the character of those who
commit crime.
But it is very clear that the police cannot do an effective job curbing
crime without the cooperation of the prosecuting attorneys, courts —
trial and appellate — and the correctional system. Beginning May 1,
we will have prosecuting attorneys, trial court, and appellate court
representatives to tell about the most innovative programs in those
areas to be found in the country.
649
The beginning of the pipeline for the commission of crime is in the
teenage groups, and new and innovative procedures must be employed
in dealing with juvenile crime. Those are the subjects we will deal with
in the hearings l)eginning today.
We are delighted, indeed, to welcome today Dr. Jerome Miller as
our opening witness, a man who has been the leader in this innovative
program you are going to hear about today. We are very proud to have
Dr. Miller here.
Would you be good enough, Dr. Miller, to come to the witness table.
Dr. Miller is one of the foremost authorities in the United States
on juvenile corrections and has played a very instrumental role in
changing the course of juvenile corrections in the State of Massachu-
setts. He is now, as you know, residing in the State of Illinois, where
he recently took a job as director of family services for the State of
Illinois.
Dr. Miller, if you have an opening statement, will you please deliver
that to the committee at this time ?
PANEL OF EXPERTS IN THE JUVENILE CORRECTIONS PIELD:
PAUL DeMURO, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF AFTER CARE,
STATE DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES, BOSTON, MASS. ; DR.
JEROME G. MILLER, DIRECTOR, STATE DEPARTMENT OF CHIL-
DREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, SPRINGFIELD, MASS.; PROF.
LLOYD E. OHLIN, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
HARVARD UNIVERSITY, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
Statement of Jerome G. Miller
Dr. Miller. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this
committee and to share with the committee some of our experiences
from Massachusetts, and perhaps some of the possibilities for our
approach having some applicability in other States of the Union.
I thought before discussing some of the specifics of what we tried
to do and are doing in Massachusetts, I would give a few of my own
biases, if you will, with reference to corrections and correctional reform
and try to put in context, the moves that we made in Massachusetts.
It was our feeling that it is the history of correctional reform, in
juvenile correctional reform as well as adult correctional reform, it
really never happens in any substantive sense. Every 5 or 10 years you
have a series of incidents, riots, escapes, stabbings, fires, whatever,
that overflow into the community from one or another correctional
facility, and then there is usually a call for reform and there is an
infusion of funds into the system. But it seems if you look at the
system 5 or 10 years after that call for reform, you find there is little
of substantive change or reform that stays or remains. The system
tends to slip back to what it was previous to the reform. In the more
liberal States, you may get some new buildings out of the reform, or
you may get a few new programs, but if you watch them they tend
to stagnate or go downhill after a period of time.
I don't mean by that that there hasn't been progress in correctional
reform within institutions, because there has. But I don't think that
the progress has kept up with that of the society which surrounds
650
these institutions. It hasn't kept pace, and is therefore in many ways
not as responsive to reform as one hopes a large system like this
would be.
It is my own feeling that the problem in reforming the correctional
system, and particularly the juvenile correctional system, is that it is
institutionally based, that the juvenile correction system for the most
part is based in large on fairly large institutions. It seems to me that
many of these institutions, if not most, are quite impervious to change.
They can devour any reform and any amount of money you can put
into them, and over a period of time they tend to sustain themselves
regardless of whether or not they are effective.
I think that this problem is a political one, really, rather than a
professional or clinical one, because we are dealing in corrections,
with systems which of their nature are quite undemocratic. Therefore,
there is very little feedback from the clientele within the system over
how those systems are run.
That, I think, leads to a sort of political situation that makes them
quite difficult to change.
It seems that in many ways the juvenile correctional systems that
we have, were really designed for other purposes than rehabilitation.
I think that, manifestly, as we speak of them, we say they are there
to rehabilitate, but I think they fulfill many latent functions for the
society, and they deal out a fair amount of moral retribution and
punishment.
One could survive indefinitely as a career commissioner or head of
youth corrections if he preaches rehabilitation and gives punishment,
provided he doesn't allow the punishment to be too widely known,
so that people feel too guilty about it, and provided that he hires
enough professional consultants to give a face of rehabilitation to the
system.
In many ways, therefore, one purpose of the system is really to
reassure people rather than to be effective, because if there is one thing
we do know, it is that most of these large institutions for juveniles
have been quite ineffective. In fact, it is my impression that not only
are they ineffective, but that often they are actively harmful and
endangering public safety.
We found in a small research study in our State, for instance, that
we could cut the return rate of boys to the department within a 1-year
period from 72 to 42 percent by cutting tlie stay in the institution
from 9 months to 3 months. The longer they received the treatment
the more likely they were to come back. The earlier they got in the
system the more likely they were to come back on a more serious
offense.
In many ways we have been providing through these institutions
some false reassurance. And it is kind of a paradox that institutions
are admirably suited to give such reassurance. You can go along as
an administrator of a system such as this if you meet about three
criteria, none of them related to what you should be doing. None of
them related, at least, to the primary goals of the juvenile correctional
system.
No. 1, you must stay within your budget; No. 2, you must keep your
staff reasonably happy; and No. 3, you must avoid incidents which
overflow into the community. All of these are good goals, but none
651
related to the stated purposes of these agencies, which are really to cut
recidivism, to lower the repeater rate, to cut back on crime in the
streets.
It would seem to me if you ran a hospital on the basis that your staff
was happy ; you were staying within your budget and had very few
people jumping out of windows, or causing incidents in the com-
munity ; but 60 to 80 percent of your patients got worse, or more ill, or
died while they were with you, people would begin to question what the
system is all about.
So the pressures on you as an administrator are really not pressures
related to what your task should be as an administrator of a system
such as this. The pressures don't come to you, really, from inmates or
clients. They are captives, and in a sense they have very little say over
how you run the system. They really have very little say. The adminis-
rator is not accountable, really, to the public, either, because the institu-
tional settings isolate these problems from the community and from
direct influences by the public.
Corrections is a system which is accountable only to itself, and I
don't think that is a healthy sort of situation. If you make a person
more dangerous while you have him with you, the person can't hold you
accountable and the public won't hold you accountable, provided you
maintain a large set of institutions.
Let me give an example of what I mean: Shortly after I arrived
in Massachusetts we had a boy who had been in one of our maximum
security institutions for, I believe, about 3 years, who was in the com-
munity and shot a policeman in Boston. I thought we would get a
number of calls from the press and others asking something about our
part in that, being that the boy had been with the department for 3
years. In fact, we didn't get any calls and hardly any mention was
made of our department in the press.
I think the reason for this is the boy had been 3 years in a maximum
security facility and in many ways we had "done our job," so to speak,
and I think the implication is, he must have been something of a
psychopathic individual and, despite our best efforts, he still got in
serious trouble and shot someone.
Now, it seems to me that that is putting the thing backward. If that
same boy had been in a community program for 3 weeks, or 6 weeks,
or 2 months, or even a year, without having been in a large closed
institution, I knoAv well that the agency would have been held responsi-
ble for whatever shooting had occurred and we would have been ques-
tioned as to why this youngster was on the streets and why he was in
this or that program.
It seems to me if he came to us, as he did, on something far less se-
rious than shooting someone, was Avith us 3 years during one of the most
formative parts of his life, and then left us and shot someone, it seems
to me that is precisely the point at which the public and legislature
should ask of correctional administrators, "What happened? "\^Tiat
did you do ? What made this person, after he had your treatment, go
out and do this sort of thing ?"
I don't suggest that the individual involved doesn't have some re-
sponsibility of his own — he certainly does in such an act — but I do
suggest we have to begin to hold the correctional system accountable.
I think it is much too easy and facile a thing for correctional adminis-
652
trators to say that these individuals have been a lifetime in forming
and we can't luiform that in a year or 2 or 3, or 6 or 8 months. There
may be some truth to that, but it is also an easy way out of the situa-
tion. Given the research in the field to show what happens in these
institutions generally, I think it deceives the public with reference to
what we are all about.
Institutions are at the heart of the problem, and it isn't because they
are run by sadists or people who want to hurt others; it is really
because they are large bureaucracies that are incapable of being com-
pletely responsive to the people they are serving, and more impor-
tantly, they cannot long sustain whatever responsiveness they develop.
Now, I think you can make an institution useful. I think you can
make an institution responsive. That is not the problem. If one wants
to put resources and money into them and swim up river a great deal
of the time, one can make an institution responsive.
The problem, however, is that it is virtually impossible to sustain
change in institutions. It is virtually impossible to ensure that the
changes you set up which make an institution human and effective,
will continue. Wliat you generally see is a charismatic person running
an institution who is nmning a very good institution, and when he
leaves it tends to disintegrate.
I think this is part of the institutional process, really. It is related
to institutions for the mentally ill, mentally retarded, delinquent, or
the criminal. It is a whole problem around large institutions. Large
institutions really, as a treatment modality, as a method of treatment,
are uniquely American inventions and they have only been with us a bit
more than 140 years or so. I would recommend to the staff of the com-
mittee a book by David Rothman, written last year, called "The Dis-
covery of the Asylum," in which he outlines something of the history
of these institutions.
Institutions fulfill their own prophecies. They offer themselves as
solutions to the problems they have created, and the paradox is that
they are that solution in the short run. Use of solitary, violence, and
isolation certainly control violent prisoners, but very often that vio-
lence in itself is an effect of being treated the way institutions treat
people. It can be greatly attributed to the lack of responsiveness of
the institutional setting.
We decided in Massachusetts, on this basis, that we would be mis-
using our mandate to reform that system if we tried again simply to
reform the institutions. We had to make a choice, with limited re-
sources, as to whether we were going to make those institutions useful
or effective, or develop alternative methods. Our institutions were
among the worst, at that time, in the Nation.
The Children's Bureau of HEW listed Massachusetts institutions
at that time as 48th of the 50 Staites in 1966. We had to make a decision
as to whether we would put our resources into making those institu-
tions good institutions — and that could be done — or whether we would
try to make those institutions as human and good as we could, but
simultaneously move, as quickly as we could, to find alternatives to
the institutions. We took the latter stance.
It seems to me that if we had put all of our inner resources into re-
forming institutions they could have been made quite good and they
could have helped cut our recidivism. They could have been human
653
places, they could have been effective places. It seemed as well, however,
that with the history of these places, you can't sustain that change.
So we decided we would seek alternatives.
Our first year we tried to make the institutions as decent and human
as we could. I am sure that the research that will come out of that,
and it is being developed — I believe Professor Ohlin of Harvard Uni-
versity will be testifying later — will show to a degree that as we im-
proved the level of the institutions, and we made them more effective,
things were better with those youngsters in those institutions.
At the same time we felt we had to move away from them into
alternatives in the community.
Wlien you think of alternatives in the community and in the average
State in this Union, think of what you are spending to keep a young-
ster in these training schools. One has a wide variety of alternatives
one can speak to, if one can think of the money spent in institutions
as being possibly available for other uses. To keep a youngster in an
institution in Massachusetts, the last year we were in them, ran any-
where from $10,000 to $15,000 per person per year.
At present, in New York State, it is $18,000 to $21,000. In Con-
necticut it is over $25,000; in Rhode Island it is around $22,000; in
Illinois, in one institution I am acquainted with, it is over $18,000.
That is a great deal of money to have available to treat someone who
has a problem of delinquency. I submit if anyone in this room had a
youngster who was in trouble and was given by the State between $200
and $300 a week to solve that problem, he would come up with some-
thing more original than a large training school. For what it costs to
keep a youngster in a training school you can send him to the Phillips
Exeter Academy, you could have him in individual analytic psy-
chotherapy, give him a weekly allowance of between $25 and $50, plus
full clothing allowance. You could send him to Europe in the summer,
and when you bring him back still have a fair amount of money left:
over. That is what we are spending in a present system which generally
is a failure and generally makes things worse rather than better.
If one thinks of it in terms of cost one has a great deal of leeway
for options. I think that if the correctional system were held as account-
able to our own economic system as other systems are, that it would
become quite productive. If, indeed, it were a competitive system, if
we did have to show that we could cut recidivism a certain rate in this
or that program, if it did have to put up or shut up, if it did have to
survive in a free enterprise society, I think we should run a very
successful system.
Unfortunately, the correctional system does not have to survive
under any rules of competition or productivity. It is not at all held
responsible and it does not have to be responsive.
It has long been known in the literature that anywhere from 60 to 80
percent of youngsters in institutions — some would say more — do not
have to be in large closed institutions. We took that research as factual
and we decided tliat we would not endanger public safety if we pro-
vided alternatives for these young people.
I do not mean by that we just turned them loose in the streets, but
we would provide alternatives.
We began doing that and we set up a series of options. Initially
under State auspices with the help of LEAA funding, but when as
95-158 O - 73 - pt. 2
654
we moved more toward the private sector, together with LEAA and
State funding, purchasing care from the private sector.
I would like to stress that possibility here. I do not think that gen-
erally the State system delivers direct services well. They generally
tend to stagnate and go downhill. I think that services are best de-
livered by the private sector in competition with one another to give
services, provided that the State keeps the private sector accountable
and provided we get from them certain guarantees.
Now, what options did we stimulate and use? We used a wide variety
of options. We used halfway houses, group homes, specialized fost«>r
homes, private psychiatric inpatient care, private psychiatric out-
patient facilities, prep schools, day schools, night schools. We used
technical training schools and private vocational institutes.
We used about anything that seemed feasible and would treat a
youngster decently and humanly, and hopefully guarantee a bit more
of public safety.
As we began to move these ways, I think it has been our impression
that it is working. We do not have full statistics yet on how the system
is working, as opposed to the institutions, but I think that most of the
research we have had shows it all going in the right direction.
There certainly is no increase in recidivism, there certainly is no in-
crease in the amount of violence, there is no increase in the crime rate
in Massachusetts. In fact, as it has nationally, it has gone down quite
significantly there. It is our impression that the system runs much more
smoothly and we had much less problem with it since wb have been out
of the large training schools and institutional settings.
I would hope that States could begin to rethink in some very basic
ways what they are doing in the area of juvenile corrections. Wlien we
talk about bad situations in some States, we are not talking as though
this was 20, or 50, or 75 years ago. These things are going on at present.
I will be testifying in a suit in the Federal courts in the State of Texas,
where at present, at least until 5 or 6 months ago, the institutions were
still tear gassing youngsters for failure to go to work on time by put-
ting them in a locked room and throwing in a cannister of tear gas and
leaving them until they vomit. There are institutions in which you still
have violence from morning until night, you still have people sitting on
floors, not allowed to sit on beds ; then, when on beds, not allowed to go
to sleep until certain times, beatings, useless work projects, et cetera.
We still have, generally, a very repressive and brutal system, and
these things I don't think are entirely unknown in the institutional
system.
I don't point to these practices and say they are necessarily repre-
sentative of the institutional system nationally, but I think they point
up what can happen in these kinds of systems, and what can underlie
the better systems.
It seems to me that the only way we will get out of that is to get out
of large, isolated, unaccountable institutional settings and to get. back
to the community, not only because it works better — it does work bet-
ter— but because it involves the community, because the community can
know these problems and begin to help deal with them, and because it
doesn't allow the kinds of false reassurance we have been giving to
communities about what we can do, when in fact Ave have been quite
ineffective and we really shouldn't be falsely reassuring the commimity.
655
I would hope as well that the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1973, Senate bill 821, or H.K. 6265, will receive
support nationally, since it will provide a Federal structure for massive
resources necessary to develop alteniatives to institutionalization.
The merit of Senator Bayh's legislation is that it will create and
expand community-based facilities in homes and shelter care and will
steer some of this fimding away from the large institutional settings.
If one were to add up the millions and millions of dollars we have
sent into these large institutional settings with virtually no return, in
fact, negative return, I think it would be a national scandal. I would
guess the average State has spent millions, if not hundreds of millions,
of dollars over the last 50 years in these large institutional sti-uctures,
every bit of research which shows that generally they do not work.
Now and then they work for awhile, but generally they do not work
or sustain what good results they have been able to obtain. So that I
would hope that the Massachusetts model, which we could discuss and
I am sure will be discussed in much greater detail by people during the
day, would in a sense at least be looked at by other States as a possible
option.
The Massachusetts model may mean that States do not need to
depend on large institutions to guarantee public safety, that States
don't need to depend on this system which has been with us for over
100 years. I think it is very fitting that since ISIassachusetts invented
the system — we had the first two training schools in the world — Massa-
chusetts should be the first to get rid of them.
What Massachusetts invented every State in the Union eventually
followed, as did some European countries. I hope that now we have
gotten rid of them and seen the error of our ways, every State in the
Union and other countries as well will look again and see what we are
doing there and have done.
Thank you.
Mr. Lynch. I wonder if you could tell the committee when you
became the commissioner of youth ser^dces in Massachusetts?
Dr. Miller. In 1969.
Mr. Lynch. You indicated. Doctor, that you had a mandate for
change in Massachusetts. From whence did that mandate come ?
Dr. Miller. It came from the legislature that created the new
department of youth services to replace what Avas called the youth
service board, very similar to the old Illinois Youth Commission, or
California Youth Commission.
Mr. Lynch. What was the jurisdiction of the department of youth
services?
Dr. Miller. We were responsible for all adjudicated and committed
delinquent youngsters in the State of Massachusetts, plus detention —
holding of them for court — and parole.
Mr. Lynch. During your tenure as commissioner, how large a
population of juveniles were you talking about, roughly?
Dr. Miller. Well, it would depend. There is a large amount of turn-
over. In terms of detention we would nm probably 6,000 to 8,000 a year.
In terms of committed youngsters, probably about 1,000 per year.
Mr. Lynch. Those youngsters were held in how many institutions?
Dr. Miller. They were held in — I haven't counted them lately — I
think about seven institutions?
656
Mr. Lynch. You talked in terms of endangering the public safety.
I wonder if you would be kind enough to indicate to the committee,
during your years with that department, how many of the youngsters
committed to your institutions committed additional crimes or delin-
quent acts subsequent to their release and had to be recommitted?
Dr. Miller. The best of our knowledge would indicate that the
average was from 60 to 80 percent were back within less than a year.
We had one institution for 12-year-old boys, 75 to 100 12-year-old boys
adjudicated delinquent, in which the recidivism rate ran somewhere
around 95 to 99 percentile. Virtually every boy that came in the door
came back.
Mr. Lynch. These were especially young boys who were committed
there for committing what land of offenses ?
Dr. Miller. In this particular case of the youngsters, generally it
would be something less than Avould be involved with older kids. Gen-
erally, they would be with us because they were poor. They would be
committed to us for such things as truancy, running away, stubborn
child. Now and then, something more serious. But generally these are
status offenses only specific to children and, really they shouldn't be
offenses.
The other youngsters in the State ran the gamut from truancy to
murder, as they would in any State.
Mr. Lynch. In a typical institution, when you became commissioner,
what kind of treatment, what kind of program, if any, was available
to the inmates?
Dr. Miller. It would depend. Some were better than others. I think
generally the youngsters were divided up in institutions according to
age and sex. I think that is generally the case nationally. Now, one
puts different handles on it at different times, with different semantics
and different ideologies. But basically, when you get down to the nitty-
gritty, the division of youngsters in these systems was usually on the
basis of age, sex, and offense.
We had, for instance, Bridgewater, the so-called Institute for Juve-
nile Guidance, which was a maximum security walled facility for older
boys supposedly for very serious offenses. What we found when we
looked through the population was that the majority were not there
for materially serious offenses in terms of violence toward persons, but
they were there because they were management problems in one or
another of the other institutions.
Institutions generally run in complexes in States. Generally they
are held together by the "big stick" or the "big threat" and that usually
is one institution that is worse than all of the rest. Just as any insti-
tution is held together by the threats of one "discipline" cottage over
another or one "specialized" dormitory over another, that holds it
together.
Words change in those dormitories. I guess in the old days they were
just called "punishment dormitories." Now they might be called "in-
tensive care" or "adjustment centers," "time-out rooms." I saw one
institution which the lock-up was called the "freedom room." I asked
why it was called the "freedom room" and was told you had freedom
to yell and scream in there and beat on the walls.
The semantics change, but basically I think institutions, large in-
stitutions, are not the kinds of places that are viewed by the people
657
in them as very healthful and they have to be held together by a cer-
tain amount of threat.
Mr. Lynch. In the typical institution of which you are speaking —
anywhere in this country — could you describe for the committee what
a typical day involves for, say, a 16-year-old young man who is in there
for four or five housebreakings ? What happens to him during a given
day?
Dr. Miller. It would depend, again, on the institution. Some institu-
tions would be highly programed with every half hour or so pro-
gramed ; the youngster being at this or that class or this or that voca-
tional training. In the majority of institutions, however, there would
be a lack of program. There would be a lot of regimentation and a
lot of movement around at times, a lot of counting, generally classes
would be unaccredited if they did have classes.
You generally will see very little in terms of productivity. And I
think what will characterize most large institutions is a certain feel-
ing of apathy and uselessness of the system.
As I say, some are highly regimented. To give an example of the
particular institution I referred to earlier, the boys in that particular
cottage are up around 6 :30, 7 o'clock in the morning. They are out
workmg then, in silence. The work consists of doing two things : Either
shoveling dirt from one pile to another, running with it from one pile
back, dumping a shovelful, picking up another shovel and running back
to the first pile, which is useless work, or picking at open ground with
picks.
They do this from approximately 7 in the morning until 11 :30 or
noon, with 15-minute breaks during which they kind of huddle down
in a circle, in silence, heads bowed. At about noon they are brought in
and showered and go into individual isolation rooms where they sit on
the floor in silence. Food is fed to them on trays that are slipped to
them throug'h a slit on the floor of the room.
They sit m there in silence until 9 at night, when they are told they
can go to sleep.
I believe they are allowed to lay on the bed at 1 p.m. They dare not
fall asleep or more time is added to their stay, which is a problem for
many of the boys who are on tranquilizers, making it hard to stay
awake.
Late in the day, 9 o'clock at night, the guard comes around and they
are told they may go to sleep.
The next morning, at 6 :30 or 7 they are let out to continue the day's
affairs as outlined above.
That is an unusually repressive institution, and at Gatesville, Tex.,
the institution is called "Mountain View." What this describes is the
discipline cottage of Mountain View.
In the average institution it wouldn't be this punitive. Generally,
you would go to classes of one sort or another. As I say, most of them
are unaccredited. There would be a number of counts during the day,
dinner at noon. There might be some recreation in the early evening,
and generally go to bed fairly early.
When I came to Massachusetts our institution for 16-year-olds was
putting boys to bed at 7 :30. I think the reason was that it presented
staff problems after 7 :30 and it was easier to lock them in dormitories.
658
Mr. Lynch. You indicated, I believe, Doctor, that in Massachusetts
it was costing $10,000 to $15,000 per annum to institutionalize delin-
quents. What does the alternative cost? What do community -based
services cost ?
Dr. Miller. Community -based services, of course, are much cheaper.
Some will be much more expensive. But if you can get away from the
idea of institutionalizing everyone that comes in the door, as com-
mitted by the courts, then you have a great deal of leeway for alterna-
tives in spending that money. If you don't pay $1,000 to $15,000 for
1,000 kids, then this gives you the leeway to pay $3,000 or $5,000 for
some and $20,000 or $30,000 for others.
We actually had some youngsters with us on very serious sorts of
crimes that involved psychoticlike behavior, involved in some kind of
very bizarre murders, and that sort of thing, and I felt in those cases
we should spend a great deal to insure public safety. In no way could
we say, with those oases, they just come to us and after serving a bit
of time or a number of years, go back to the community.
Mr. Lynch. Well, Doctor, with a delinquent of that nature, a felon
indeed, how do you insure public safety ?
Dr. Miller. I think for the most part, with felons, as well, really,
the kind of case I was really referring to was really more of a sick
individual — and I don't believe most of delinquents are sick — that with
felons you can insure public safety in various supervised community
programs, live-in programs, and non-live-in programs. It depends on
what one means by security.
There is eyeball security, if you will. This is supervision that is
much closer and can be given much more closely, often in small group
homes, than it can in large institutions where you have 25 or 35 as-
signed to an individual. No institution can be made all that secure.
No juvenile institution really can be made completely escapeproof and
if you look at large training schools around the country you will gen-
erally find if anyone really cares to get out of them, that in the vast
majority of them, it is not too difficult a thing.
What holds them together is the fear of punishment when they come
back. We had one institution in Massachusetts in the late 1940's where
they broke fingers for running aw^ay. When you came back they took
your index finger and brought it back until it broke. That cut down
on the number of runaways from that institution, even though it was
comparatively easy to leave from that institution.
I think there is a kind of feeling that if you lock someone up you
have guaranteed some public safety. There is no question that if it is
a solid lockup you have guaranteed public safety while that person is
locked up, but when you are talking about juveniles, as I am sure this
committee has heard many times, those juveniles will be back in the
community, and it is kind of a deception to think that lockup in it-
self is going to guarantee much public safety.
Our problem with runaways, escapees if you will, seemed to diminish
appreciably once we were totally in the community. There was a prob-
lem of moving from the institutions to the community and a transi-
tion period where we had a lot of kids wandering around the State, if
you will, who were so used to being institutionalized that they just
didn't know how to take the community-based center. They weren't
necessarily getting in a great deal of trouble, but for 2 or 3 months
in that transition, we had problems.
659
I think the reason for thai^ was that our youngsters were highly in-
stitutionalized. You had the kind of bizarre situation in which you
put a boy in an institution for 2 or 3 years and then you put him in a
home in the community where the front door is open and there is pub-
lic transportation, and all, and it is not a locked situation, and he will
go upstairs to the bathroom and sneak out the bathroom window and
climb down the drain and run, not realizing that was kind of ridic-
ulous ; he could walk out the front door. They were reacting in a sense
to the institutional process, as we built in a whole self-fulfilling proph-
ecy in institutions.
Once we got through that transitional period we had much less
problem with that and the whole thing calmed. However, I stress even
during all of the transition, even during the first year — and we have
been out of institutions now in Massachusetts for over a year now, a
year on January 10 or 12 the last boys' training school closed — I would
think that now the number of incidents has appreciably diminished
from what it was a year ago in the old system.
Mr. Lynch. Would you institutionalize any juvenile delinquent?
Dr. Miller. No, I wouldn't. That does not mean I would not say
that some juvenile delinquents should be in closed, locked settings, but
by the term "institutionalized," I would not subscribe to that term. I
do think there are dangerous individuals who need to be in locked
settings. However, those settings should not be large training schools
or large penal institutions because they do not work.
They should be small, individualized, secure, locked settings. You
can make a small setting locked and you can provide individualized
care for truly dangerous people in them.
I would like to see a time where we would have available to the aver-
age youngster in Massachusetts, and Illinois, who is truly dangerous
in terms of violence toward persons, the same sort of options that have
always been available to the upper middle class, or upper class dan-
gerous persons, and that is a private, small psychiatric closed setting,
where at worst we simply provide some human care and at best we
provide some care that works, as well.
It just doesn't seem to me it makes any sense any more to talk about
institutionalizing anyone in large institutions. It does no one any good.
The only time the large, closed institution will make any sense is when
we are ready in this country to say, "Let's lock someone up and throw
away the key forever." I hope we never come to that point. Even
though some people may be unsalvagable I think to make that great
leap would have much more meaning to the rest of us than for those
whom we incarcerate.
Mr. Lynch. It is often said that juvenile institutions teach juveniles
how to commit crimes, how to escalate, if you will, their crime careers.
The President recently, as the chairman indicated this morning, called
the prisons in general, "colleges for crime." From your point of view,
as a youth corrections commissioner, is that statement provable? Do
juvenile institutions in fact encourage and/or teach young people to
commit additional crimes?
Dr. Mnj:.ER. I have no question that that is true. I don't know specific
research studies with reference to that. I am sure there are many.
Perhaps Professor Ohlin could point to some, but I have no question
of that in my own mind. I have many youngsters in my department
G60
and it is just a common thing. If you visit any adult facility and just
ask at random who was in the juvenile system, it is "Old Home Week,"
everyone has met somewhere or other along the line.
There is no question at all that the juvenile system as it is presently
constructed is a school for crime.
"We run them at all levels. We ran our little grammar school for 12
and under, where it had a 95 to 99 percent recidivism rat«. We moved
them on as they got older, up the line in schooling for boys, the older
training school in other words, for 13- and 15-year-olds. That was
kind of junior high. Then on to high school, Shirley Industrial School
for Boys at 16, and junior college, the Institution for Juvenile Guid-
ance at Bridgewater, and then on from there to the University of
Walpole, or maybe postgraduate work at one of the Federal
penitentiaries.
But there is no question in my mind that is the system these people
are caught up in. It seems to me that if at the early ages we made
more options available, our chances of breaking out of high recidivism
in this country would be greatly enhanced. There are European na-
tions who have been able to move in this direction with some si^ificant
results. Albeit, they are simpler societies and less complex in many
ways, more homogeneous, but even given all of that, I do think we
could substantially improve our own system.
Mr. Lynch. As you went about the task of converting the system
in Massachusetts from institutions to community-based programs,
what kind of public response did you receive ?
Dr. Miller. Well, I think that we expected many more upsets than
we got. We received a great deal of public support. And I think that
in many ways, legislators — how could I put it tactfully — are not as
progressive as the public is when this issue is confronted openly. I
think the public is very much in favor of substantial and substantive
correctional reform. It was our impression that this was the case in
Massachusetts.
It is now, I would think, in Massachusetts, something of a political
liability to be in favor of large institutions for juveniles. We don't hear
it any more.
Mr. Lynch. Doctor, public opinion is a strange thing. I suppose if
you take a poll of how many people are in favor of community-based
treatment programs you might get an overwhelming favorable re-
sponse, unless it is from a fellow who is having one put next to his
house.
Dr. Miller. That is right.
Mr. Lynch. How did you handle that problem in Massachusetts?
Dr. Miller. I think that is very true. That is one of the reasons
I had a certain distrust of mj^ greatest supporters in the liberal com-
munity, who were very much in favor of these places until we decided
we might want to put one or two in one or another of the suburbs where
the supporters lived.
What we found, and I think we made some mistakes along the way,
initially we talked of setting up group homes and halfway houses
under our own auspices for delinquent youngsters, specifically for
delinquent youngsters. We did get some of these going. The majority
we got into communities with no problems.
eai
We had a few problems here and there. The Harvard study indicates,
I think, why we had problems and why we didn't in various com-
munities. But I think we learned as well that it is far preferable, if
one can, not to set up specific halfway houses or group homes for
delinquents alone, but to set up group homes and halfway houses and
alternatives that have a heterogeneous population with one or two
delinquents rather than the whole house identified that way.
What we moved toward in Massachusetts — and I am sure Mr. De-
Muro will speak to this when he gets here — we found a whole series of
alternatives that were able to observe delinquent youngsters and pro-
vide supervision and care that did not have to be identified in the com-
munity as a facility specifically for delinquents. So long as we didn't
inundate these programs with delinquents they did quite well.
So it is my own feeling that with some exceptions, and certainly
there are in terms of kids who are involved in crimes of physical
violence, for the most part many of these youngsters can be absorbed
into already existing programs. In many States there already are a
lot of alternatives around that just have not had a tradition of
handling delinquent kids.
One can find these, once one begins to let loose some of that money
that previously had gone to sustain training schools.
Mr. Lynch. Doctor, in Massachusetts, I believe, you dealt primarily
with children and delinquents who were referred to you by the juvenile
court system. Is that too late? Should we be referring people prior
to the time that they are court identified? What are your views on
that?
Dr. Miller. It is a difficult dilemma for me. I think in the abstract
it is true that we should be preventing these things earlier. There are
certain ominous implications, however. I think it is awfully difficult
to identify delinquents, and you hate to get in the business of sorting
out youngsters in grade school or high school as predelinquents. I
think it has other sorts of difficult implications.
I don't think there is any question, however, that the greatest service
one can do when one wants to prevent delinquency is to divert kids
from the present juvenile justice system. And if that is, in fact, true,
then it does involve getting in on the case early. We try to do that in
Massachusetts by allowing courts to send referrals as well as com-
mitted youngsters, allowing them to refer a youngster to us without
establishing a record, and I think that is a step in the right direction.
There is no (juestion the earlier in, the better off we are in terms of
cutting recidivism. But I think we give up too easily on those who are
deeply in the system, particularly youngsters.
It may be a more complex situation with adults, but it seems to me
that it would be very difficult from any professional point of view to
throw away hope with reference to anyone 16 or under.
Mr. Lynch. You indicated earlier that one of the problems in alter-
ing the system is certainly a political problem, and I take it you were
using that term in its broadest context.
Dr. Miller. That is right.
Mr. Lynch. In a bureaucracy what happens to the people working
in it just has to be a central issue. What does a correctional commis-
sioner do who wishes to close institutions? AYhat, in effect, did you do
in Massachusetts to use or retrain people who had been working in the
old system?
662
Dr. Miller. We gave to our staff a series of options to their present
jobs in the institutions, and through union negotiations allowed them
to choose. There were many administrative hitches in setting this up,
and doing it another time around, I think it could be done much more
smoothly than we were able to do it. But we were going into unchar-
tered areas and we had to feel our way.
Initially, what we did was give them a series of options whereby
they could work in the community, they could become parole aides or
work in a group home, or where they could work with kids in street
work. The problem that we ran into is that many of the institutions
were clustered way out in the country and away from where we
planned to put the youngsters and it involved moves by the staff.
After a period of time I think things settled quite well and the ma-
jority of the staff did get into these other sorts of positions.
I think if I were to do this again, however, I would prefer that we
had made arrangements at a higher level in State government to pro-
vide staff options in a variety of State departments. I think such
things as pools could have been set up and giving them preference with
reference to other positions that were unfilled in other State depart-
ments, so that there would have been more possibility of people being
absorbed through a number of departments and it would have involved
less hardships in terms of moves.
It is very difficult for people working in institutions. Their lives
become just as institutionalized as the kids there. It becomes a whole
lifestyle. In one of the institutions we closed the staff kept reporting
for weeks, if not months, every day, even though there were no kids
there. You had the impression the institutions should run beautifully
if there were no clients.
The cafeteria and everything went along quite well. It is a whole
lifestyle. One has to break into that, and it is verj^ difficult.
Mr. Lynch. You indicated that some 104 years ago, Massachusetts
created the first industrial school and the rest of the country rushed
to replicate that school. Is it too early, in your judgment, for the rest
of the country to rush into what Massachusetts has now done ?
Dr. Miller. I think it is not too early. I think they should rush ; yes.
I think that we have moved too slowly in this field. I know one of the
criticisms of us in Massachusetts, when we first got going, was we
moved too quickly. My own feeling is we did not move quickly enough.
In those areas where we moved a bit more slowly than others we had
problems.
It is not a terribly radical thing to do this ; it is a very reasonable
and rational thing, given the research we have on the old system. And
it can be done, it seems to me, much more smoothly if done quickly.
There has been a great deal of concern the Massachusetts model will
be followed by other States, by groups, and there has been a great deal
of interest. I don't know how many would follow it or whether they
would do it the same way, but it does seem to me that it is time we
think in very basic ways about providing alternatives, and I think we
will be able to show in our experience there that these alternatives do
work as well as the old, but, at best, much better. And it is much
cheaper and much less a betrayal of ourselves in the way we treat
these kids.
Mr. Lynch. No further questions.
663
Chairman Pepper. Mr. McDonald, do you wish to ask any questions?
Mr. McDonald. No. sir.
Chairman Pepper. Dr. Miller, we want to commend you on this inno-
vative program that you have offered in Massachusetts. Would you just
describe what the program is, how it works, and who runs it?
Dr. Miller. When a youngster is sent to us by the court, Mr. Chair-
man, he is seen in one or another of the regional offices.
Chairman Pepper. In the first place, if a youngster is committed by
a court he is committed to the correctional system?
Dr. Miller. To our department ; yes. To the department of youth
services. He is then seen in one or another of the regional offices. We
set up a regional structure so it would be closer to the community. A
decision is made there after short diagnostic study as to what sort of
resources we have available in the State on a purchase-of-care arrange-
ment, most often from private agencies, that would insure this kid
will be less a danger to the community when he returns.
These options could range from hospitalization in a private, locked
psychiatric hospital to a drug, self-help treatment program where he
lives in ; to a group home where he may have, for instance, a job during
the day, or school during the day and be there in the evenings and
weekends under supervision ; to a group home where he may have
intensive group work and therapy a number of times a day ; to being
sent to a regular private school or prep school somewhere in New
England at our expense where he would just engage in the regular
normal routine of a school such as that ; to being sent to a foster home,
a specialized foster home, for instance, where he might live with a
graduate student and his wife who will devote a great deal of time
to him in an individual way.
Or he might go to the University of Massachusetts where we have
a 10-bed group home in one of the college dormitories, run initially
by the students for credit, and with the department of education
providing a specialized sort of care.
He might go back to his own home and, whereas the court didn't
have the money, our department would pick up the tab for family
services, or for intensive counseling with him and his family in the
home. Or he might be assigned to a college student who spent 15,
20, 25 hours a week with him on an individual basis and we would pay
that college student for his expenses, and some money for tutoring,
or what-have-you, for the kid.
What we are trying to do is provide a whole range, a whole spec-
trum, so you are not caught with a kid sent away by the court, the
only option is training school or home, with nothing in between. We
are trying to make available all these options. Surprisingly, it can
be made available with an existing budget, provided you can get out
from under the old system. The old system is terribly expensive. So
we are not talking about a great infusion of funds.
Initially, one needs funds to get out from under the old system. But
we in Massachusetts are able to handle at present close to triple the
number of youngsters for approximately the same budget.
Chairman Pepper. Doesn't this take a great many supervisory per-
sonnel to carry out the system ?
Dr. Miller. It takes our own staff placement people and parole
agents who will supervise and make sure that the services are being
664
delivered, but the actual services for the most part are given by private
groups, by private staff, and they are accountable to us to make sure
these services are hand delivered.
Chairman Pepper. Were those staffs already in existence or did you
stimulate their origin ?
Dr. Miller. Many were in existence and many we stimulated. It
is surprising when the money becomes available, when you say we
are going to make money available to you to purchase care for kids,
how many alternatives will develop.
In Massachusetts, we actually nad more alternatives develop than
we had money to purchase. There is no dearth of alternatives and if
there is, if one makes a firm commitment to move from institutions,
the alternatives will begin to create themselves.
I am certain, for instance, the University of Massachusetts had never
thought of taking a delinquent kid into a dormitory until we were out
of training schools and said we would make some money available on
a per diem cost for kids in other settings and they came to us with the
proposal. As I say, in most cases you are talking of an average of $200-
plus per week per kid. That is what most States are using now to treat
these youngsters.
I caution the committee as they go over figures from the States
to realize that most State agencies fudge their figures in this regard.
I was given a figure of $5,500 a kid in Massachusetts. But, in fact,
that wasn't an honest figure. In fact, what they do is keep out capital
outlay and the central administrative cost to sustain the system. They
have ways of breaking that budget up so it doesn't show.
But, in fact, the cost to keep the kid in the institution in most States
in this Nation at present is in excess of $10,000 and in some States it
exceeds $20,000.
Chairman Pepper. You have personnel in practically every sizable
city or community ?
Dr. Miller. That is correct. We have regional offices in eight dif-
ferent regions throughout the State. This would be in Boston, Worces-
ter, Bridgefield, North Shore, South Shore, New Bedford, and the
Fall River area, so that we have some representation throughout the
State, and then we have people that work out of these offices in satel-
lite situations and on the streets.
So that we are available to the courts and to the schools and that
sort of thing.
Chairman Pepper. You can move the students around any part
of the State you wish to ?
Dr. Miller. That is right.
Chairman Pepper. If you have a suitable place for them ?
Dr. Miller. That is correct. One program is based on movement,
outward bound, based on the outward bound concept, the British
survival training, where the youngsters, for instance will hike from
Connecticut to Vermont, through the Berkshire Mountains, through
Massachusetts, and then will go across the State and do quarry
climbing.
Chairman Pepper. Suppose you had a boy, a dropout, say he dropped
out about the seventh or eighth grade, he has been into some trouble,
been in the juvenile court system, and he was committed to you. You
first have an interview with him ?
/665
Dr. Miller. That is right. Somebody in the department would have
an interview with him and they would decide what options do we
have primarily in this region for this young person who is a dropout.
And that would range through contracts that we would have with
various private schools, with various group homes, halfway houses,
treatment centers, that have been developed. Very often developed for
other people, but are willing to take juvenile delinquent kids if we are
willing to pay a fee per week.
Chairman Pepper. How much would you pay? Suppose a couple
undertook to take four or five boys in their home and look after them
and try to carry out your program ? About how much would you pay
per student ?
Dr. Miller. The foster care fee in Massachusetts is about $25 a week.
If we are talking about a very specialized foster case, saj a very dis-
turbed j^oungster who is going to take a great deal of time, then we
have a special contract where we pay the people up to $75 a week to
provide a lot of care, where they come to group meetings together.
And it is almost a job for them, a full-time job for one or another of
the couple. The majority would be in homes at about $25.
Chairman Pepper. Would those custodians provide all of the facili-
ties that young man would receive ?
Dr. Miller. No ; they may or they may not. They would generally
provide the advocacy for the youngster. They would provide something
in place of parents. We might in some cases, for instance, as well make
available to that foster parent some money for special schooling or
special tutoring.
All of this, incidentally, all together, is substantially cheaper than
the training school.
Chairman Pepper. And on the whole you find that the new system is
now less expensive than the old ?
Dr. Miller. It is much cheaper. There is no question, it is much
cheaper. The problem you get into is when you have to carry the old
system along with the new system, because you still have to carry the
staff and the institutional budget. Then it costs more because you have
to add on the new. If you can get something to absorb the old system
there is no question the new system can be done much more cheaply.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wiggins ?
Mr. Wiggins. Doctor, when the juvenile court system in Massa-
chusetts refers a delinquent to the department of youth services is
that referral for a fixed term or for the minority of the youth ?
Dr. Miller. It is just a commitment to the department with no
fixed term and then it is up to the department to decide what happens
at that point.
Mr. Wiggins, Your authority then would be to keep the yoimgster
in the system during the full term of his minority ?
Dr. Miller. It could be. We generally kind of frown on that. We
would like to return the youngster as quickly as possible to the com-
munity, as quickly as it seems feasible. It is possible, however, we can
keep him until 21.
Mr. Wiggins, And for this purpose, age 21 is deemed to be the
minority-majority breaking point?
666
Dr. Miller. That is correct; although you are tried as an adult in
Massachusetts at age 17. We can keep the youngster in our depart-
ment, provided he doesn't commit a subsequent crime, as an adult until
age 21.
Mr. Wiggins. Does the court have any discretion at all concerning
the types of treatment modality that will be employed ?
Dr. Miller. What we have tried to do in this case is build up a
court liaison project where we have a representative who visits the
courts regularly, and larger courts, it is there full time, and we try
to develop a coordinated plan with the court previous to the commit-
ment, so we do have some agreement regarding the possibilities for the
youngster.
Mr, Wiggins. Does the court have discretion or not in terms of what
you do with the youngster after ?
Dr. Miller. No. Wlien the youngster is sent to us it is up to the
department to determine disposition. What we have tried to do ad-
ministratively, is to build in an arrangement with the court whereby
we work these things out together ahead of time to avoid problems in
that regard. But within the law, the court does not ; no.
Mr. Wiggins. It is something in the nature of an indeterminate
sentence; isn't it?
Dr. Miller. That is correct.
Mr. Wiggins. You, being in corrections, are mindful I am sure of
the criticisms and warnings of the indeterminate sentence procedure.
Is that criticism justified ?
Dr. Miller. It certainly is. And it was a dilemma for me along the
way. I think the indeterminate sentence and the kind of arrangement
we have in Massachusetts gave us a great deal of flexibility, initially,
to bring about the reforms we wanted. It gave me the flexibility to
send all of the youngsters home from the training school, so we could
close them on a certain date.
However, it also gives the same sort of flexibility to someone who
wants to keep someone locked up for umpteen years.
So there are built-in problems to it. I would hope eventually in
Massachusetts they would develop some sort of middle-ground
whereby we could set some maximums, at least, on how long the young-
ster would be in the care of the department. We would have to rejus-
tify the care in court after that time.
Mr. Wiggins. Do you have sufficient flexibility to take care of the
truly dangerous youngster who may be committed at age 16, for
example? Must you release him at age 21, regardless of your judgment
as to his danger to the community ?
Dr. Miller. I think in that case — and I don't recall that has been
an issue in any specific case as of yet — we probably would go for a
commitment in terms of mental health. I think one could go that
route. The youngsters that were in the department while I was there
would not have reached 21 yet. They all would have been 16 in late
1969 and 1970. So that hasn't been an issue.
There were two or three that came to us that first year who are still
in mental hospitals, private mental hospitals.
Mr. Wiggins. One final question. If this committee were inclined to
make recommendations in this field, would it be a valuable recom-
mendation or not that the court have more direct input concerning
the disposition of the youngsters ?
667
Dr. Miller. I think, given the problems in the courts and the great
disparity between the courts and the way they are set up and the
training of the judges, that it could present many problems unless there
were some very firm guarantees. I think the idea of indeterminate
sentences, for instance, particularly where sentences are to a specific
institution or a specific kind of place, militates against any kmd of
rehabilitation, ultimately. So I think it is a double-edged sword.
It is a difficult one, but I would think it could present a lot of
problems.
Mr. Wiggins. I do, too. Thank you. Doctor.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Winn ?
Mr. Winn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Miller, you mentioned just briefly a minute ago about hiking
trips and I just wondered how much of your program, percentagewise,
would incorporate variations of recreation.
Dr. Miller. This particular program I referred to is the "homeward
bound" program, and I believe we ran between 350 and 400 youngsters
through it last year. It is a classic "outward bound" program.
We hired an instructor trained in outward bound from Australia. I am
a convert, incidentally, to this sort of thing. I didn't know, really, and I
didn't believe this sort, of approach had any relevance particularly to
inner city delinquency. I no longer believe that. I think it has a great
deal of relevance. Of what, I am not sure. The only thing I know is it
seems to work well. I think it probably has to do with the self -concept
and the fact the youngsters have some success at some things, where
they have not had an opportunity to have these successes previously.
They will do such things as hiking, rock climbing, and quarries,
sailing, swimming, all sorts of obstacle courses they run. They do it
in brigades or groups of six or eight, in which everyone is responsible
for everyone else. No one will fail the course if they try, because their
buddies will carry them through it. They do a 3-day solo in which they
survive alone on an island or mountain somewhere out by themselves,
with a sleeping bag, a canteen of water, a piece of string and a match,
and they make it on their own that way.
At the end of all of this they come together and return. It has been
a very successful program. I think recreation in that sense is a very
useful thing.
Mr. Winn. Now, the facilities that you closed, are none of those
facilities in good enough condition they can be rehabilitated for uses
as gymnasiums ?
Dr. Miller. That is right.
Mr. Winn. They are all bad ?
Dr. Miller. No, no. I am suggesting just what you are suggesting.
Some of them were in pretty bad physical shape. Some were very old
buildings. But a lot of these places would make very fine community
colleges, very fine resources to the community. One of our institutions,
I don't know if the negotiations are still on, but when I left, there were
negotiations with the town to use it as an elementary school.
I would suggest that many of these institutions in many States would
make phenomenal places for "noncaptive" groups. The problem is that
when you have a captive group there, that is when one gets into the
problem.
'668
Mr. Winn. Have you tried using any of the old military bases that
have been closed ? Because a great many of those we found have pretty
good recreational facilities, including Olympic-size swimming pools.
Dr. Miller. That is right. I would say if there was a caveat any
State ought to take in this regard, it is to beware of building. We don't
need any more buildings. We don't need any more of these places. There
are plenty of possibilities existing, if one can think creatively, in the
community. There are plenty of existing unused facilities there.
Mr. Winn. What you are saying then is this recreational-type pro-
gram really — and the expression is not true, because of the way we
look at the word "day care," we think of that for little kids — is a day-
care type of program ?
Dr. Miller. Exactly.
Mr. Winn. For the older juveniles, where they would be established
in either their homes or community nighttime, but they would have
recreational facilities, schooling
Dr. Miller. That is right.
Mr. Lynch. Job training, whatever their situation might be.
Dr. Miller, That is right. Because the average delinquent, you know,
isn't delinquent all of the time. He is only delinquent at certain times in
certain conditions with given people at given times. Generally, we
know when those times and all are, and recreation, for instance, can be
a major part of prevention.
Mr. Winn. Is nighttime higher ?
Dr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Winn. As it is in normal crime ?
Dr. Miller. Yes. I think that is one of the reasons our program
with the college students has been quite successful, is they have spent
time with youngsters when they would be most likely to get in trouble,
the evenings and weekends.
Mr. Winn. Do you use any of the programs we hear about nowadays,
using professional athletes or well-known athletic heroes ?
Dr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Winn. You have a hard time getting those fellows to give the
time unless they are paid ?
Dr. Miller. We have a few around. We had Joe Scibelli from the
Los Angeles Rams, and a few like that with us ; yes.
Mr. Winn. But percentagewise, fellows making $100,000, $200,000,
$300,000, it is pretty hard to get them to give up a couple of hours a
week?
Dr. Miller. That is right. It is.
Mr. Winn. What has been the court reaction to your general pro-
gram ? Has it been basically pretty much in agreement or are there all
variations of opinion ?
Dr. Miller. I wouldn't want to say it has all been an agreement. My
own bias is the better courts have been in agreement. I think there was
some upset along the way. Many judges were used to banging the gavel
and not seeing the youngster for quite awhile. They were upset when
he was back in the community that quickly. They were in many ways
using the training school and had to be reeducated to the new programs.
However, many of the judges, particularly, I think, the chief justice
of the lower courts who hear most of our cases. Judge Flashner, were
in agreement with what we were doing and saw it as a useful thing. I
669
think the judges have come along, particularly through our couit liai-
son project.
Judge Linihan from south Boston, who has been the judge there for
many years and certainly is quite a conservative judge by most meas-
ures, told us this fall he was extremely happy with the program for
youngsters in south Boston and this was one of the better programs
iie had seen in his 15 or 20 years on the bench.
Mr. WiNx. Did you have any kind of liaison meetings or community
meetings with the courts as a group, or did you have to do this individ-
ually ?
Dr. Miller. We did both, Mr. Winn. We met both individually and
in groups. I think both were useful, although ultimately I think the
individual meeting turned out to be the best, the court liaison project
where we could meet individually aroimd specific cases.
I went around through a number of courts myself and met with
judges as we made these moves and tried to allay fears about them. But
I would say most courts now would be in agreement with what we are
doing. There would be some exceptions.
Mr. Winn. Did you have meetings with the commimities?
Dr. IMiLLER. Yes.
Mr. Winn. And with the community leaders so you could get the
community support and acceptance ?
Dr. Miller. Right. Meetings with the commimity were crucial to
this. I would guess in my 0I/2 years in Massachusetts, I made at least
three to four speeches to community groups a week regularly, and our
staff was out regularly. This was crucial to it. There is no way one can
brin^- about that sort of move we made in Massachusetts without com-
munity support. When we got into some crises around the moves, the
community was there to support us. We met, for instance, with the
League of Women Voters everywhere in the State, the Council of
Churches, and different sorts of groups.
Mr. Winn. To make another arm of it, because we found, in the last
week particularly, that those who had good records as far as preven-
tion of crime, had good relations with the police departments, had not
only good relations with the community, but with the press. And how
did you set up your relationship with the press and what was their re-
action to your program?
Dr. ]Miller. I feel we did very well with the press. I think that the
reason we did is that we were completely open and honest with the
press. We didn't hide problems at any time. In fact, we tended to share
them in advance, so we could at least get a chance to explain what we
were talking about. At all times, we had a very open policy to the
press. We made it clear at the beginning, for instance, in changing the
institutions, there would be no institution or no room in an institution
or no building in an institution that would not be accessible to the press
at any time, at any hour of the day or night.
I tiiink that helped. It helped us to expose some of our own problems
and showed the need for change. But I think the amount of press sup-
port we had for the reform was very encouraging and very helpful.
INIr. Winn. Did they support editorially ?
Dr. jMiller. Yes ; particularly the Boston Globe was very, very help-
ful. We got a great deal of editorial support around the State for the
moves we made.
95-158— 73— pt. 2 3
670
'Sir. Winn. Tliank voii very much.
Thank you, ]Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Sandman.
Mr. Sandman. What do you do with a boy who doesn't work out in
your program ?
Dr. Miller. Well, Mr. Sandman, what we do, we try again and again,
but we have more options to try liim in this time. There is no question
a large percentage will not work out. It is just that we feel more will
work out than in the old system.
Mi\ Sandman. Let me isolate this.
Dr. JMiLLER. OK.
Mr. Sandman. As I understand what you said — and I hope it
works — you said you have done away with all of the institutions for
juveniles in Massachusetts. My question to you is this: For the boy I
am talking about, a big boy, between 16 and 20, let's say, you have gone
the full gamut of trying to help him. He does something bad while
somebody is trying to do something nice for him. OK. What do you
do for the boy the daj' he does that? What happens to him?
Dr. Miller. When I say we closed all institutions, we closed all of
our large training schools. We do have the capacity for a couple of
small locked settings for youngsters such as this that might need
controls for a period of time until we get hold of the situation.
We also have contractual arrangements with private psycliiatiic
hospitals which have the same capacity. Every private psychiatric
hospital I am aware of — Chestnut Lodge. McClean. Menninger's. you
name them — all have the capacity on the grounds for a quite secure,
locked facility, with good control. So for tliat sort of youngster we
would have that capacity.
It is just that we wouldn't necessarily mean we would keep him in
a long time.
]\Ir. Sandman. But my thinking is that you have to have some kind
of institution for that kind of an individual.
Dr. ]Miller. I think we need some sort of locked facility. But I
don't think this necessarily needs to be a large institution.
Mr. Sandman. Reirardless of the size. I was onlv talking of iust
following through your theory. Having had some extensive experi-
ence with these kinds of boys it seems to me that you always have to
have some sort of threat of what can happen to you if you are not a
good bov. Don't you agree with that ?
Dr. Miller. Xot exactly. I think you may have to have the possi-
V)ility of a locked setting. I am not at all sure the threat in these cases
motivates much. One of the groups, for instance, that objected, when
we closed training schools, was the private treatment facilities which
were used to motivating kids to stay in them, to say, "If you don't
make it here, you are going off to the training school." and they were
concerned they wouldn't keep their population. In fact, that didn't
occur when we got out of the training school.
I think one does have to have the capacity to lock someone up.
There is no question of that. It is a matter of devising a system that
allows one to choose these options, and I think you find that the vast
bulk of kids that are presently institutionalized don't need to be in
that sort of facilitv.
671
There are some dangerous youngsters, but even those could be in
small, closed facilities that are not institutional.
Mr. Sandmax. I have never known a judge that felt like this kid
ought to go away; have you ^
Dr. Miller. No; but 1 tliink when they say, "the last resort," they
don't realize there are many options before that last resort, because
the judges have not had the funding available to their courts to provide
tlie options. AVhat it has been is a matter of a sei'ies of warnings, the
[)ossibility of some piobation, maybe voluntary counseling through a
local social agency that the judge might have a relationship with.
But they have very few options avaihible.
The last resort is the option they use when the other options don't
work, and as a last resort the kid goes to the training school.
We like to say to the judges that we could spend some of the
moneys we are spending on training schools to provide you with other
options as well. So the last lesort tiling won't have to come into play
(juite so early.
.Mr. Sandman. How about the boy who commits a common law
crime, a crime other than violence ? Does he come under vour svstem ?
Dr. Miller. Yes, he does.
Mr. Saxdmax. One other question: The boy who has had a long
string of scrapes with the law. In our State, for example, it is almost
a rule of thumb that a juvenile comes before the court at least three
times before anything happens like sending him to any school.
Dr. Miller. That is true.
Mr. Saxdmax. And he is always — it is a matter I have always heard
in private — given every break you can give him. Finally, when they
are so discouraged, the parents can't do anything with them, and he
has committed a common law crime, then for that reason he doesn't
get this kind of treatment any more and he is then in the institutional
system you refer to.
Mr. Saxdmax^. OK. Then let's assume we are talking about that kind
of boy. I am in accord with your thinking; I am not disagreeing with
you just because I am asking the question. I think you can handle
them better the way you are talking about. Rut let's assume this boy,
in addition to doing this also, has a long record of narcotics use.
Now, under your system, do you segregate that boy from the other
bovs ?
Dr. Miller. Under our system we have much more capacity to do
that if we wish to. in a specific case, because we are using probably
200 or P>()() different settings in the State. So we do have much more
option than just six or seven training schools.
So that we would have that capacity, yes; if that seemed indicated
and it would depend on the specifics of the case. We do have arrange-
ments Avitli a lot of self-help conce]:>t housing drug treatment pro-
grams. We could use those options. We have a lot of other options
that would be available. So what I am suggesting is that our system,
as we are developing it and I hope it will continue to develop, legally
provides a wider spectrum of options so that you have much more
flexibility to work these problems through before one talks of long-
term institutionalization.
I think even for those who have to be locked up it need not be in
an institution, a larij^e institution. I think vou can talk about small,
closed facilities for less than 25 people.
672
Mr. Sandman. Is it fair to say you believe those that are narcotics
users should be placed, in with other youngsters who are not ?
Dr. Miller. I couldn't say that as a rule. It would depend on the
person.
Mr. Sandman. Don't you believe they would be highly dangerous
among the youngsters who never used narcotic drugs ?
Dr. Miller. They could be; yes. It would really depend on the
individual case. I would say as a general rule I would tend to agree
with you, but I would hate to get held hard and fast to it with a 15-
or 16-year-old. It would depend on how much a user; whether he is
truly an addict or not; what he is using; that sort of thing.
Chairman Pepper. What Federal aid is now available to the States
to carry out programs as you have in Massachusetts, and what Federal
aid would be desirable for that purpose ?
Dr. Miller. Our program in Massachusetts really got off the ground
through the use of Federal aid; primarily, the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration.
Chairman Pepper. Hov,- much ?
Dr. Miller. Our first year, I believe it was around $2 million. I am
just not sure now. We use that as a flexibility. When I came in we had
very little money to buy care with. All of our money was tied up in
staff and institutions, and we used those Federal funds to break out of
the system. I note the report by the urban coalition, that was fairly
negative of LEAA, pointed to oiir program in Massachusetts as one
of the few positive uses they saw of the money and we were flattered
they found it that way.
Howe\^r, I think there were other sources of money. Florida, I
understand, has used a great deal of title IV-A fimding in the pro-
gram Oliver Keller has developed down there. Massachusetts was late
in getting into title IV-A, and I think Mr. DeMuro will speak to that.
I believe we will be receiving some title IV-A funding in addition to
some more LEAA funding. Ultimately, I would hope, there would Ije
some move in the direction of Senator Bayh's bill, which would provide
funding to develop alternatives to institutions, or other similar legisla-
tion.
Because, ultimately, it will be a great deal cheaper. I realize that
Congress must get tired of people coming in and saying, if we had
prevention programs, or if we could have this or that treatment pro-
gram, it is going to cost less, and they find 10 years later it is costing
triple as much.
Chairman Pepper. You would need Federal aid to break out of the
old system into the new ?
Dr. Miller. That is correct. But I think, therefore, whatever
legislation is written should include in it some firm guarantees that
the States ensure they get out of the old system. Otherwise, what they
will do is develop a so-called preventive program in the commimity,
but let the old system stand and then it has j)recisely the opposite effect
one would intend.
They will throw a wider net out and bring in more delinquents, if
you will.
Chairman Pepper. Would it be desirable or necessary, in your
opinion, because of maintenance of those programs, for the Federal
Oovernment to contribute to their operation ?
673
Dr. Miller. I think it would be helpful ; yes, sir.
Chairman Pepper. AVhat percentage of the cost of a State program
should the Federal Government, in your opinion, pay ?
Dr. Miller. Well, it would depend on what kind of commitment the
Federal Government wants to make. If you arc talking about commit-
ments through revenue sharing, 1 think a department such as ours
should get some of that. If you are talking about continuing title IV-A
funding, for instance, at the present ceiling put in by the Congress, I
think that would be adequate to help most States, if they made a com-
mitment in the area subsequently to move out of these institutions. I do
not think in the long run the Federal Government would have to
sustain these programs. I think the States have enough money to
sustain them if they can get out from under their present programs,
which are very, very exjx^nsive, and it would seem to me the best use
of Federal funds would be to help the States move from their present
programs to new programs.
Chairman Pepper. We are running a little late. Mr. Lynch, would
you ask the next tAvo witnesses to come up. We vsdll hear them together.
Mr. Sandiniax. Mr. Cliairman, one other question.
Under your program, do you have any kind of work program in-
volved?
'Dr. Miller. Yes. We have arrangements with the Urban — I don't
i-emember — the Urban Corps. We have work programs that way. We
hire a number of our youngsters, have a relationship with the division
of employment.
Mr. Sandman. If the kid comes from a bad environment, for ex-
ample, under your program in the summertime, let's assimie, do you
place him on a farm somewhere, where they would have to pay him?
Dr. M1LI.ER. We might. We do have, as one of our options, helping a
youngster to find a job, or helping an arrangement through jobs.
Mr. Sandman. Do you have any objection toward that?'
Dr. Miller. No. For a time, for instance, with our purchase-of-
care money, we funded our own job corps slot. We paid an employer
to hire youngsters and paid part of his salary out of State funds. It
was still cheaper than institutionalizing.
Mr. Sandman. Have any of the other States followed your pattern
in Massachusetts ?
Dr. Miller. I think most States would say they want to move in
that direction, but maybe not in the same way.
Mr. Sandman. They haven't, though ?
Dr. Mn.LER. No one has done it that way ; no. We w ould like to com-
mend ourselves to them and hope they do it that way.
Chairman Pepper. Dr. Miller, Ave thank you very much. It was a
verv splendid presentation. We certainly hope that your imitators will
be numerous in pursuit.
Mr. Lynch. Dr. Miller, if you don't have other plans, I wonder if
you could stay seated at the witness table.
Mr. Chainnan, I think Dr. Miller has given us a good foundation
in understanding what Massachusetts has done. We are fortunate
this morning to also have with us Mr. Paul DeMuro. who is the assist-
ant commissioner of after rare of the Massachusetts Department of
Family Services. Mr. DeMuro vrill comment on the most recent de-
velopments in the Massachusetts' system, as described by Dr. Miller.
674
Wc also liavo Prof. Lloyfl Ohlin, who is currently director of
Harvard University's Institute on Criminal Justice. Professor Ohlin
was associate director of the President's Connnission on Law Enforce-
ment and Administration of Justice. Pie also served as a special
assistant for juvenile delinquency to the Secretary of the Department
of Health. Education, and AYelfare, and he was the supervising re-
search sociologist of the Illinois Parole Board.
Mr. DeMuro, I wonder if you could give us your opening remarks
and that perhaps could be followed by Professor Ohlin's sununary of
his rather extensive prepared statement.
Statement of Paul DeMiiro
]Mr. DEMrRO. Thank you. I think there is no need to go into a lot of
detail because Dr. INIiller hit the nuijor points. There were a couple
of commentaries I had. Dr. Miller generally stimulates my thinking.
One of the things we have to be aware in developing these alterna-
tives is that we not only hook into the professional bag in the com-
munity. I know we had a great success with the YMCA, ihe boys'
club, street programs, churches, the institute of contemporary art,
people who are involved in activity they see as meaningful.
We catch up a youngster in the same kind of activity. I think fre-
quently social workei's tend to look at the community and think we
have to go to more ti-aditionally established agencies. There is nothing
wrong with the established agency or the professional itself. I think
we have to look to where the client is, where his interest is, who best
represents that interest in the conununity, and what are those re-
sources worth developing.
Particularly, I think this is the case with such federally funded
programs as the neighborhood youth corps and OEO and CAP
agencies that seem threateiied now.
Dr. Miller mentioned at the eiid of his statement that we buy into
the neighborhood youth coi-ps. We have over 500 j-ouths working with
community groups, subsidized through State and Federal funds. If
the Federal moneys aren't there to maintain those programs, an awful
lot of what we have already done will go down the drain.
Some statistics as of last month. We had 683 kids in group care,
the kind of group homes Dr. Miller described; 241 in foster care; and
ovev 800 nonresidential service slots, being jobs, counseling, alternative
schools, et cetera. This total caseload of the department is close to
3,000, which represents three times what was normally held before
Dr. Miller came to Massachusetts.
Such a delivery system, as Dr. ^Miller says, costs less per youth than
institutional settings. However, I nuist say that like most agencies
we are in a tight fiscal squeeze. AYe have had difficulty transferring
institutional accounts into the purchase of service accounts, and I
think this is a key when other States look at what we have done. They
liave to have the flexibility of getting out of operating boiler looms
and large cafeterias and 1.000-acre plants and get that money into a
service account, which can buy counseling and buy job training.
Moreover, as we developed better and more community -oriented
programs, our image began to change from the State's youth authority
to a service agency. And this is the key. The kid comes to us for a
675
iset\ ice, l)e it coimseliiii^ or vocational trainino:. "Wc become, then, a
referra] aa^ency for a larger group of kids, not kids just necessarily
labeled delinquents.
I would Stress that there should be some mechanism, hopefully, if
the Federal cuts do come to OEO, that our kind of clients, and that
is generally the poor, neglected urban kid, gets tapped into revenue
sharing. I have some doubt when revenue sharing comes to the large
city that the cities will use it: it will go to lower the cost of real estate
or traditional education. Our client, the street kid, poor kid, unem-
ployed family, will not be able to tap in directly to revenue sharing.
I think it is encumbent upon all of us in Government to make sure
revemie sharing Avorks for tlie people on the outside.
I don't think we can look at Massachusetts and suggest we have all
of the answei-s. "We have, and we will continue to have, difficulties, and
I think some of your questions hit on some of those difficulties. Just
because a pei'soii works for a private agency, let's say the YiSICA,
doesn't necessarily make him a better youth worker.
There are as many untalented, fake, and corrupt people outside
ol" State government as there are within. However, with the private
sector — and this is the real key issue — one can cancel a contract or
cliange the program to reflect the client's need or redirect monevs and
))rograms to those most in need without fighting the frustrating
luireaucracy of State government, replete with civil service protection
and ]iatronage.
There is no doubt that is the key. the ability to move money to kids
and programs to that kid's need without having to close down 1,000
State employees.
Also, we need to develop more intensive-care-based smaller units
which have the capability of locking the youngster up, 8 to 10 youth,
staffed by the best medical and psj'chiatric talent available. Such
programs will be costly for the damaged kid, and I am convinced,
after 3 years in the field, the percentage of such kids is small. They
deserve no less.
When we began changing the svstem in Massachusetts close to 80
percent of our youth graduated to adult corrections. Recent statistical
studies on particular programs, our forestry program, suggest some
dramatic results, but I will leave the studies to academia.
Chairman Pepper. "Will you go back to that figure of 80 percent you
used. Wliat was that ? ■
Mr. DeMttro. A^Hien we first got into it in ]\[assachusetts. 75 to 80
percent of the kids coming out of our system wound up in adult
corrections. ■'.^■^■[
Chairman Pepper. The reason I was interested to get that is I have
heard from various juvenile court judges the figure of 50 percent, but
you said 75 to 80 percent.
]\[r. DfAIuro. In our State : that is correct.
Chairman Pepper. Very good.
^Ir. DeMitio. Ivecent studies on pai-ticular programs suggest some
di-amatic results, but I will leaA'e the study to academia. and also this
afternoon invite you to question five youngsters Ave brought along with
us. "We all felt the old system was a failure.
The system Ave are developing in Massachusetts has to be more suc-
cessful than that for it is based on meetinir a voutli's needs on an
676
individual basis, seeing him as a unique personality with his own
strength as well as weaknesses, and worldng with him to develop an
appropriate treatment plan that is designed for him and not consider-
ing him a candidate for a wooden, numbered bench in a detention
cottage.
And I think that is the key to it. The youth service agency sees itself
as a defender or advocate for the kid, sees justice must be served, what
are you looking at when the kid comes to the system, and I think that is
why Dr. Miller was really successful more than anything else.
We saw a kid and what his needs were and tried to meet them.
Thank you.
[Mr. DeMuro's prepared statement will appear at the end of the
testimony of this panel of witnesses.]
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, Professor Ohlin will describe what his
institution is doing to study the program, then we can direct questions
to all three witnesses.
Chairman Pepper. Professor Ohlin.
Statement of Lloyd Ohlin
Mr. Ohlin. Mr, Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before the committee to talk about the research and evaluation studies
we have been undertaking with the Department of Youth Services in
Massachusetts.
I am research director of the Center for Criminal Justice, Harvard
Law School, and we have been following the development of the reform
program for youth in jMassachusetts since Dr. ]Miller's arrival in Xo-
vember 1969, and, in fact, even prior to that, following the passage of
the legislation creating the new department and the mandate for
reform, which he has implemented in Massachusetts.
At the outset I would like to say that I think JMassachusetts is ahead
of most States, but many other States are moving in the same direction.
The basic theme in youth services in the United States is diversion of
youth from institutions to other kinds of treatment settings, deinstitu-
tionalization; that is, winding down the large institutions or closing
them, as is happening in Massachusetts.
I think I can be quite brief. Since you do have my prepared state-
ment, I would like to summarize it and add a couple of things that are
not in there.
Chairman Pepper. We are anxious to hear it.
Mr. Ohlin. The second major trend is the enrichment of service
alternatives. One of the problems with our juvenile justice system is the
lack of adequate alternatives and options for youth dealt with by the
courts probation services, yet this is one thing a State system of cor-
rections can provide with its broader jurisdiction, greater and more
flexible resources.
Most States are now emphasizing community-based services ratlier
than services far removed from the community, mostly in rural areas.
As Dr. Miller indicated, he came into JMassachusetts with the idea of
trying to organize within the institutions a more therapeutic climate ;
that is, treatment cottages that could be more effective than they were
before.
His first steps were to create decentralized cottage units in all of the
institutions, and our studies indicate he was quite successful in this.
677
We studied 10 cottages to compare the old custodial system of rimiiing
those cottages with the newer therapeutic cottages. Our results indi-
cate they are really successful. The response of youth to those cottages,
and the staff as well, created a very different kind of climate even
within the old institutional settings.
However, it was also clear these new cottages could not be created
fast enough. Older staff locked in by the civil service system were not
equipped to run these types of cottages effectively and the budget was
too restrictive to permit the hiring of new staff to do it.
Dr. Miller then evolved the policy of moving these cottages out into
the community as group homes.
As he indicated, we did a study of the group home problem. We
studied three group homes that succeeded and three that failed in an
effort to identify what forms of resistance developed to community
group homes, and how these might be successfully overcome. Though
I will not go into this now, we did identify a number of basic condi-
tions which either have to be created or must exist for group homes to
be successful in local neighborhoods.
At the present time, there still are a number of problems that have
to be solved in order to consolidate the gains in reforms which have
been undertaken in Massachusetts. It was necessary to set up a regional
structure, which did not exist when Dr. ]\Iiller came to that depart-
ment, in order to supervise and develop community-based treatment
alternatives. This regionalization structure is still being developed
to make it more effective.
There is a need to provide some type of facilities for dangerous and
disturbed offenders. Dr. ]Miller has just spoken about that at some
length. There exists one institutional facility at the present time and
there are plans to develop two other small public facilities housing less
than 20 youths each.
The detention program has also been changed. No mention has been
made of that here as yet. The policy has been to create shelter homes
in place of the large detention centers which existed when Dr. Miller
came. That program is going ahead rather rapidly, and I think well.
The small shelter care arrangement seems to work much better than
the large detention centers.
Chairman Pepper. lAHiat sort of facility is that. Professor ?
;Mr. Ohlin. The shelter center is similar to a small group home,
housing 8 to 10 boys or girls. It is used to service the court, to hold
youngsters until they are disposed of by the court.
The department "has also developed an effective court liaison op-
eration. This involves allocating part of their staff to work in the
court with the probation personnel and judges, identifying cases that
are likely to come to the department, working out referral arrange-
ments, if possible, or diverting them to other alternatives so they don't
have to go through the entire juvenile justice process.
There are two other points t would like to make.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me just a minute. You mean before, when
a lad was engaged in some sort of delinquency, before he was formally
brought before the court some system of referral was worked out ?
Mr. Oiii>ix. Yes. The department has been working out arrange-
ments with the court where, prior to adjudication, the court and de-
678
partment agree on a voluntary referral to some type of treatment
service.
Chairman Pepper. Bnt after the court had obtained jurisdiction?
Mr. OiiLiN. Yes. The court has jui'isdiction. but the case has not yet
been adjudicated.
Chairman Pepper. But there had been some sort of complaint; the
3'ouno-ster had in some way been formally brought before the court?
Mr. Ohlin. That is true ; yes.
The department in recent months has accepted quite a large num-
ber of these referrals. It creates a situation where a youngster doesn't
get a delinquency record, but yet gets the treatment that the court and
the department feel would be useful for him.
It is obvious that if used too much it would be harmful. It could
sweep into the department's jurisdiction many youths that are now
simply warned and i-eferi-ed back home, or to other services in the
community.
With the new purchase of service prograui generating competitive
arrangements among private agencies, the l^ig need now is for qual-
ity control. The department has to develop some means to insure that
high quality services are being given to youths. It must decide what
types of services should be continued and whether alternative serv-
ices should be tried. This type of quality control program is now be-
ing developed and is essential where widely dispersed services of tliis
kiiid are under contract to private agencies.
Finally, the department is wrestling with the problem of personnel
development and training. INIassachusetts. I guess, is not unlike many
other States, since its civil service system is very strong. It provides a
great deal of security and most of the staff have been there for many
years. They are used to the old system and find it hard to fit into the
new services which are being developed.
This is one of the major stumbling blocks to consolidation of the
new programs.
So, as Dr. ]Miller says, we really have in Massachusetts now both
systems to some extent. The old institutional system exists as an empty
facade of the past, but staff are still assigned there. There is still the
danger some of those institutions might be reopened. They are now^
beginning to be used by other departments in the State. But that dan-
ger still exists.
In conclusion, I think the Massachusetts expei-ience clearly docu-
ments we overincarcerate kids in the United States. We rely too much
on formal institutional treatment for youth. Tliis has been a destruc-
tive policy in the past. Dr. Miller became thoroughly convinced that
it was only by closing these institutions and forcing the develop-
ment of new community alternatives that real progress could be
achieved.
In some cases, I gather, the pace of the reform was so quick that
the needs developed before the funds were there. Part of the prob-
lem in Massachusetts is to have the funding catch up with where the
proo-rams are.
That is one major strain which still exists in the program and it is
a serious problem, particularly where new private agencies arise to
meet this demand without adequate fundinir reserves to carry them
over the transition period. This is where Federal finids were so enor-
mously helpful to Massachusetts. They were flexible funds, that could
679
be adapted to build up the new services and take the depaitment
through a transition period durino- which the old services could be
completely closed down and the money diverted to the new ones.
Perhaps that is all 1 should say in the way of opening reuiarks.
[Professor Ohlin's prepared statement appears following the testi-
mony of this panel. J
Chairman Pepper. Professoi- Ohlin, 1 suppose that we as a society
in this country never have quite made up our minds just why we in-
carcerate people. I suspect that we do so as a carryover of the old con-
cept of retribution, punishment.
A young man here in the city of "Washiiigton, a few years ago, 17
years old, robbed, raped, and killed an elderly lady. What do you do
with a boy like that? He is of an age wheie he is supposed to know
the diiference between right and wi-ong. He had committed a horri-
ble crime. What do you do with him ?
One or more teenagers were i-esponsible for shooting Senator Sten-
nis here in front of his home recently. Senator Stennis told me that
the fellow who shot him was just as cool and calm Avhen he shot him
as if he did that every day. A man's life was almost taken, a man has
been confined in a hospital for many months, suffering great pain and
anguish. What do you do with a 3'oung man who does something like
that?
It is hard to get out of our minds that people ought not to suffer for
committing a heinous crime. On the other hand, that crime has already
been committed by the time it comes to public attention. I suppose the
primary consideration for society after that is to keep him from com-
mitting anothei- crime, and Avhat we should do is probably try to use
the techniques that are most likely to prevent the repetition of that
crime, in which case we should put the emphasis on rehabilitation
rather than punishment.
What should we do with juveniles or adults, Avho commit crimes?
]Mr. OiruN. The feeling vou refer to that simple justice requires the
meting out of punishment for especially heinous ci-imes is widespread.
It is fundamental to the whole system of justice. That system is
designed to mete out sanctions in the form of punishment, and is nece^s-
sary to give people a sense of security in the laws and their administra-
tion and to encourage respect for them.
I don't think we will ever get away from that concept. The law is
designed to admiiiister punishments, and we can set up a correctional
system that will handle difficult cases appropriately. Confinement, in
either adult or juvenile institutions, is clearly punishment in itself. It
has high visibility and I think serves the emls of justice.
But punishment by itself wnll not provide the jjublic safety that we
are after. We must back it up with intensive services, supervision, and
treatment. In the end w^e will be safer if we lend our support and
resources to building that kind of a system.
I don't think that we ai-e yet in a position, as a country, to make a
choice between punishment and treatment altenuitives. We have to
live wnth a system that tries to administer them both. But we would like
to make the rehabilitation or treatment side far nioi'e etfective than it
has been in the past.
Chairman Pepper. Would you apply to the adult correctional system
the same general principles that govern this program we have been
talking about here today?
680
Mr. Opilin". Yes, I would. We are actually trying to move in that
direction in Massachusetts with the adult system. I think that that
system will probably not move as fast. We can't close down the adult
institutions with as much speed as was done m the juvenile system, in
part because we have the graduates of the former juvenile system.
There are some very dangerous offenders in the adult system who will
require secure facilities.
However, Ave also tend to overconfine adult offenders. We too often
use confinement where other measures would work better. Partly
because we haven't, again, developed other alternatives for the adults,
any more than we have for juvenile delinquents.
The history of correctional reform has shown that changes tend to
come first in the juvenile system and then are passed on to the adult
system. I suspect that will be true of these newer policies which are now
being tested in Massachusetts and elsewhere in the country.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you, Mr. Ohlin.
Mr. Lynch. Professor Ohlin, you have very substantial, to ssij the
least, credentials in the juvenile field and also a reputation as a scholar.
As a scholar and student of tliis field would you feel comfortalole in
i-ecommending to other States that they at this time replicate the
ISIassacliusetts correction experience insofar as it applies to juveniles?
Mr. Ohlin. Yes, I would. I feel that all of the States in the country
go much fui-ther in the direction of the Massachusetts experiment than
they have. It may be true that in some other States there exists a higher
proportion of dangerous and disturbed youngsters that one may haA^e
to keep in small institutional facilities, of the type Dr. Miller has
described, than is true in Massachusetts. But I think our results show
that the Massachusetts experiment has been a successful one, that it
does offer a new pattern of correctional services for youth that is more
effective and less costly than the alternatives we have now.
Mr. Lynch. Plow long will we liave to tr-aclv people who are grad-
uates of the new system before a firm judgment can be made as to its
efficacy ?
Mr. Oiii-iTN. We have that ti-aeking program underAvay now. The big
question we Avould like to be able to answer is. Has Massachusetts
succeeded in cutting out a generation of recruits to the adult system?
If that turns out to be true it seems to me that that evidence will be
compelling for other States.
Now, the time needed to determine whether or not that happens and
in what measure it liappens will require another 2 or 3 years. We have
to alloAv enough time for tlie voungsters Avho have been througli the
new juvenile system to I'each adidt age and then see to what extent their
criminality continues or whether instead they turn into law-abiding
pursuits.
It takes a followup period of roughly 3 years to get a firm answer to
that question. We will, of course, get so7ne results sooner than that.
For example, we already have some preliminaiw results on recidivism
11 months after treatment which show that the new system for the
small group we followed is working about twice as well as the old one.
P)Ut these results are still fragmentary and for an unrepresentative
small group of cases, so that I would not now offer them to you as firm
evidence of either success or failure.
681
However, the observations of DYS staff and our own research people,
have given lis a feeling, let's say a sound hunch, that the final figaires
will, in fact, show substantial improvements OAer the recidivism rates —
as measured by new court appearances — of tlie old i)istitutions.
Mr. LYNt'nl Mi: DeMuro, in operating a program of this nature,
whether using pi-ivate or civil servants, it would seem to me, because of
the things you are trying to do, you would really need more committed,
more highly skilled, and better trained people. How do you recruit?
What do you look for?
Mv. DeMuro. In staffing?
IMr. Lynch. Yes.
Mr. DeMueo. I take issue with your question on one point. That is,
simply, the number of people who worked in the institutions would
have very good reasons to help kids. The motivation to work with
juveniles, regardless of age or training, I think is the key. A number of
people in the institutional settings have moved into the communities,
albeit there was trauma at the beginning, some fear, but I think the
department can insist, in terms of training, support, as they move
from really secluded institutional models for themselves to models in
the community.
Regardless of age or professional training, what I look for is this
rapport and feeling for youngsters caught in the system, the ability
to see that youngster as an individual rather than a category. For
them, certainly, we need better and more trained people, say, psycholo-
gists •
Mr. Lynch. "VVliat kind of training programs do you have now ?
Mr. DeMuro. Right now we attempt to get as many of our staff as
possible hooked up in universities in the area. We have a rather sub-
stantial arrangement with the University of Massachusetts where
students who are in professional degree programs there are truly vol-
unteers or part-time workers for our department, and our department
has people going toward advanced degrees at the University of Massa-
chusetts.
We are attempting to develop other kinds of hookups with tradi-
tional universities throughout the Commonwealth.
Dr. Ohlin talked about the evaluations. This monitoring of delivery
systems : I would like to see this really thrown to the universities, as
well as evaluating of our programs and upgrading of our staff in those
programs. It would be kind of a cooperative venture in each of our
regions of the major university to take on the training of our staff as
well as evaluating the ongoing programs. Tlie university serves as a
nice focus for a lot of committed professionals, pool of manpower, to
get involved in things like this.
But we too often think because someone worked at the institution
that he then can't work in the community.
Mr. Lynch. I did not mean to imply that. I am pleased at your re-
sponse. I wonder if you could tell us if Professor Ohlin's charge in-
cludes an evaluation of staff performance?
Mr. DeMuro. I will let Professor Ohlin speak to that.
Mr. Ohlin. We have tried to distinguish two types of evaluation
problems here. One is an operational everydaj^ need, since an admini-
strator needs to know where his kids are, what types of programs they
are in, how those programs are working, and how effective his staff
682
is in relating to youth. We Imve l^een workino- with the department to
try to get that built into the department as an ongoing responsil^ility
of the commissioner and his aides; that is, a special unit for that
purpose.
We have our own resources committed more to the long-range eval-
uation problem. We have studied some immediate prol:>]ems of the de-
partment to suggest policy alternatives. But, basically, we see our
long-range evaluation as feeding back data into the evaluation of gen-
eral policies rather than the specific performance of particular of-
fenders, staff members, or individual programs.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. DeMuro, Dr. Miller indicated earlier that he expe-
rienced less public antipathy toward this changeover than he had origi-
nally thought would take place. What is the situation in that regard
now ? What kind of public support do you have?
Mr. DeMuro. I think under Acting Commissioner Levey, we built
on that initial support, particularly as we moved to answer the need
for the more disturbed youngster to help him in small intensive-care
units that had to be opened in the up-coming months. Mr. Levey is out
continually talking to groups. We have maintained the same open ac-
cess to both the press and the community. We welcome that.
With Secretary Goldmak we are developing regional area councils
of private citizens who actually sit with the professional social work-
ers and social service agencies developing a formula and policy for tlie
expanding of funds. I think we see more of this in Massachusetts.
Mr. Lynch. Dr. Miller also indicated, I think, in an anecdote over
the recital of a crime that had been committed by someone who had
been in jail for 3 years for killing a police officer and Dr. Miller said
that he received no inquiries regarding that incident. Have you, since
this program has been operating, had juveniles in group homes or com-
munity-based services who have gone out and committed relative
heinous crimes ?
Mr. DeMuko. We recently had an incident.
Mr. Lynch. How have you handled those ? Has there been a public
outcry?
Mr. DeMuro. There has been no outcry. It has been honest inquiry.
We had a young fellow run from a camp, shelter camp, stolen car. LTn-
fortunately, he had an accident. There was an explosion, the gas tank
exploded. There were a number of inquiries about that particular inci-
dent and we were glad to talk to people about w^hy that particular
lo-year-old boy was not held in jail ; why he was at the camp.
■ Mr. Lynch. For what offense had he been committed to you?
Mr. DeMtiro. Driving without a license. A motor vehicle offense ini-
tially got him into trouble. But he just turned 13. It was quite work-
able in the eyes of our counselors at our intake procedure and that is
why he was being detained at a shelter-care facility, this YMCA camp.
You can never replace that particular life or get back to that family
what was taken from them in that awful accident, or whether the right
decision was made in holding that particular youngster at a YMCA
camp rather than locked in jail.
Mr. Lynch. There was a fatality involved ?
Mr. DeMuro. Yes, there was.
Mr. Lynch. Not to the boy driving ?
Mr. DeMuro. He was seriously hurt and was in the hospital.
683
Mr. Lynch. Has ho been released from the hospital yet?
Mr. DeMuko. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Lynch. What will you do with him when he is released ?
Mr. DeMuro. I would see this youngster being a candidate really,
not for a locked intensive-care thing — he has a behavior problem of
running — I would see him in a small group home, intensive psychi-
atric work, like the Liberty House Associates, a luimber of intense
group home experiences up in Maine, where you are talking about
professional staif with him 24 hours a day, 7 days a week trying to
work on his impulsiveness.
Mr. Lynch. Some kind of control that will reasonably assure he
doesn't run out and get his hands on another automobile?
Mr. DeMuko. That is it.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. I believe
Mr. McDonald has several.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. ^McDonald, will you proceed.
Mr. McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to direct this to Mr. DeMuro, and perhaps Professor
Ohlin can answer it also. The critics of the Massachusetts experiment
have said, in effect, that the system was fine under Dr. Miller, and
under Acting Commissioner Levey, it works fine for the youth that it
deals with, but there is at least a portion bound over to adult courts,
kids that just are too difficult for youth services to handle. They are
being taken away from youth services and bound over to adult court ;
children under 17 are being sent to the adult prisons. Can you comment
on this ?
Mr. DeMuro. Yes. There are two important issues here. One is we
tend to think about this experiment as before and after. We had 1,000
kids trapped in a system. Dr. Miller recalls at Bridgewater that 75
kids went into alternatives. There are some heavy offenders, tougher
kids, trapped in the system whom we haven't been as successful with
as perhaps we might : or the alternatives haven't been successful.
However, I think the whole issue is really a smoke issue. Last week
we had 14 youths in the State of Massachusetts being held currently.
We did a study about a month ago to find out how many kids were
in the adult correction vis-a-vis 5 years ago, and Ave found it was two
kids more ; 27 to 25, 1965 to 1972.
This doesn't seem to be an alarming increase. Xo one likes to see a
juvenile go adult. There is, however, another side of the coin. When
a juvenile does go adult he generally gets a much better trial than in
our district courts. We have 69 district courts in our State and there is
a tremendous variety of talents and degree of differences. So I think
that although it is true some kids are being bound over: One, they
are still in the process of change, particularly the older delinquent who
perhaps was 14 three years ago and is now 17, can we count him as part
of that population to judge the system; and, second, according to my
statistics and the research my staff is doing, there aren't that many
more, really.
Mr. Ohlin. We have tried to check into that because it is a very
important issue. When judges feel they have been denied institutions
to hold youth they believe should be confined and away from the com-
munity, the ob^dous option is to turn to the adult system. I agree with
684
Mr. DeMuro, that resort to such an alternative has been greatly
exaggerated.
To the extent we can follow boundover cases, which is very difficult
in Massachusetts because of inadequate records, they were coming
largely from two courts where some increase has occurred. However,
for the State as a whole, the increase in the last couple of years has
simply brought the figure on boundover cases back to where it was 5 or
6 years ago.
Mr. McDonald. Mr. DeMuro, there has been a lot of talk this morn-
ing about maximum detention centers. I understand you have the
Andros project in Boston ?
Mr. DeMuro. That is right.
Mr. McDonald. Your main security facility in Boston.
Mr. DeMuro. That is right.
Mr. McDonald. Again, criticisms I have heard of Andros have been
it is nothing more than just like an old institution, the kids being
locked up there without too much psychiatric care. Is there any dif-
ference between Andros today and the old detention centers?
Mr. DeMuro. I think one of the reasons for this criticism is Andros
happens to be, unfortunately I believe, located in our old facilities. It
is tremendously expensive to build small intensive-care units and we
therefore had to remodel or rebuild some of our older places. Andros
is very much different than anything we have had in the past, for a
number of reasons.
One, it is on purchase of service contract, namely, with the Boston
Mental Hospital Associates, a number of qualified psychiatric talents
who actually run the program. There are certain contractual obliga-
tions we have built into their contract : A limited number of kids in
programs, the number of hours of treatment, reports.
Second, Andros, as a major staff component, has tapped in a num-
ber of former graduates of the adult systems, exconvicts, who are
under a constant training program by the Boston Mental Health, who
have brought to that program an advocacy for the individual client
that I really find refreshing, and an ability to relate to a client in the
sense, "Hey, we know where you are going because we came from
there."
The fellows involved there, it grew out of a peaceful movement com-
mittee, were incarcerated during the Attica riots, pulled themselves
together in the peaceful movement committee and, subsequent to their
release, came to our department looking to get involved. Although
perhaps some of them lack professional training, not many degrees,
there is an awareness on an actual level where our kids are coming
from, coupled with the Boston Mental Health Associates profes-
sionalism, makes that program something unique. I haven't seen it
duplicated.
For those two reasons, granted, I would like to see Andros taken
apart and a small, 6-bed Andros for each one of those regions I sit
on, and not 35 kids together. That doesn't make sense. There is the
issue.
Mr. McDonald. Can you comment on Roslindale ? Is that still pri-
marily a detention center ?
Mr. DeMuro. The facility on the second floor is where Andros itself
is housed. The third floor of Roslindale is detention awaiting adjudi-
cation in the court. Although we have been successful in opening up
685
camps and shelter-care programs it still serves as a secure detention
site for close to 50 courts, the Cape area, through route 128, the geog-
raphy of it, and because of that, the influx on a given weekend of
numbers of youths coming in and out. It is not community based.
It is not one police department, it is over 30.
I would like for Massachusetts to close it and get back to the po-
tential for that kind of youngster. I don't say we ha^'c to have poten-
tial for that kid. Certainly, we get back to where he is controlled by
folks in those communities who can enrich intensive care, secure pro-
grams for our center.
Mr. McDoxALD. I have no further questions. Thank you.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Nolde ?
]Mr. Nolde. Professor Ohlin, you mentioned the tendency to over-
confine. Dr. ]Miller, of course, has also spoken to that issue. I take it
the key there wordd be classification of offenders. How can you iden-
tify these dangerous offenders? Do we have adequate tools available
today for identifying the dangerous offenders and separating them
out, with some degree of competence ?
INIr. OiiLiN. I have been very much concerned with that question.
My colleague at the Harvard Law School, xVlan Dershowitz, has de-
voted the past few years to the intensive study of our ability to predict
dangerousness, because the whole concept of preventive detention is
tied to that capability.
I am convinced that our means for making accurate predictions of
dangerousness are very crude, very inadequate, and they involve a
high degree of error.
Our best predictors of dangerousness are still past conduct and
confinement in juvenile institutions. Eesearch indicates that the fur-
ther youngsters penetrate into the juvenile justice system, and espe-
cially its correctional institutions, the longer they stay there, the
greater the likelihood they will be adult offenders and will commit
serious adult crimes.
So the best predictors we have now of dangerousness are what we
have done to offenders in the past and what kind of past behavior they
have exhibited. Some of the behavior that upsets us most, some of
the most disturbing and worst crimes we know of, are actually rare
events which seldom occur again with the same individual. It is not
only because such offenders are usually confined as punishment, it is
because these tend to be rare offenses and therefore very hard to
predict.
But I think we still have the obligation to try. We make predic-
tions of dangerousness now ; the courts do it all of the time. We do it
in the correctional systems, both juvenile and adult, and we have to
continue to perfect that capability based upon our analysis of past
experience.
^Ir. DeMuro. Mr. Chairman, I would make one comment on that.
We have had a study of our Judge Baker Clinic, which does workups
on the most dangerous, labeled the most dangerous, by the court largely
because of the nature of the offense. I stress the fact the Judge
Baker Clinic has nothing to do with our department. In a rather com-
plete and also competent diagnosis of 100 referral youngsters it was
that clinic's finding that only 14 needed to be remanded to a locked
facility. I think this stresses the point that we overshoot this.
95-158— 73— pt 2 1
686
Dr. Miller. This 100, it is a very fine study done by the Judge
Baker Clinic, which is a very eminent clinic. It sliowed of this 100 —
we are talking about the 100 adjudged most dangerous youngsters
seen — this particular doctor who did this study saw virtually every
juvenile murderer, every youngster who has done any serious crime
of violence. So we are talking of 100 youngsters sent to us on very
serious crimes, or for very serious behavior, and it was their impres-
sion that of that 100 only 14 really required a locked setting.
INIr. NoLDE. Do you have confidence, Dr. jNIiller, in the conclusions
on that score? Also, as the correctional administrator who has to make
those decisions, do you feel you have the tools now to make that kind
of determination witli some degree of accuracy ?
Dr. Miller. I don't feel we have enough tools, but I think we do
know the way we were doing it was quite harmful, and I think that
what we were doing was A'ery harmful and what we can do and are
doing now is less harmful. We will make some mistakes. Although I
must say, very candidly, I expected many more incidents than hap-
pened. I really didn't believe our own rhetoric quite enough, I guess,
because I expected many more problems in the community.
^h\ NoLDE. Speaking of the community, how do you go about deal-
ing with the reluctance, on the ])art of the people in the community,
to have facilities located in their own neighborhoods ?
Dr. Miller. I think one of the points mentioned earlier is we tried
to a^'oid setting up specific facilities for delinquents totally. I think it
is much easier that the majority of yomigstere, if you can absorb them
into other community programs or develop new programs and take a
more heterogeneous population in so you have less problems.
I am sure Professor Ohlin's study could be made available to the
committee, in which they studied three group homes that met a great
deal of community resistance versus those that didn't, and the kinds
of techniques and things that occurred in each case.
Mr. NoLDE. Professor Ohlin, I think you referred at some time to
more effective measures of social control outside of the criminal justice
system ; specifically : Should drimks, vagrants, truants, and runaways
be subjected to the criminal justice system? Would you comment on
that ?
Mr. Ohlin. I think this is a very important subject. We are over-
burdening the criminal justice system with problems that it is really
not equipped to handle and shoukhi't be handling. This is true of both
the adult and juvenile institutions. The status offenses for children
constitute a rather large part of the population that we now keep
locked up in children's institutions. That really doesn't make much
sense.
There really are many more alternatives and less costly alternatives
out there in the community that can be developed if we are willing to
put the resources and the energy into finding them. I think the Mas-
sachusetts experience has clearly demonstrated that is the case.
There are so many histories of adult offenders who started out as
truants, went to training schools, escaped, returned, escaped again,
maybe stole a car the next time to get away, and eventually ended up
in adult institutions after having spent most of their youthful years in
some kind of institutional environment. This occurs so oft^n simply
687
tlirough an escalation of what was originally a very minor and in-
significant behavioral problem.
This is what we mean wlieii we say that we very often create adult
criminals rather than cut oli' their careers as youthful offenders with
the juvenile systems we now have.
Air. NoLDE. One final question for you, Professor Ohlin, and also Dr.
jNIiller. Can a system of punishment ever be truly compatible with
individual treatment and rehabilitation ?
Mr. Ohlin. I think, as I indicated earlier, we have to live with
that reality. "We have a system of criminal sanctions that has other
functions to serve for society in reinforcing respect or regard for law
and obedience to it. The prevailing opinion, which I subscribe to, is
that a sliort sentence for the purpose of serving the ends of punish-
ment as a sanction is in highly Aisible cases probabl.y the best way to
handle the problem.
There is a growing concern that the indeterminate sentence system
is not working right; it tends to keep people confined for too long a
period and serves effectively neither the ends of punishment nor reha-
bilitation. We need to change that.
Mr. NoLDE. Dr. Miller (
Dr. Miller. I would tend to agree with Professor Ohlin with refei'-
ence to adults. I wouldn't agree with reference to the youngsteirs. I
think it is a very difficult problem because of the implications it has
for the law. Roscoe Pound made the comment that the founding of
the juvenile court was as great an act as the signing of the Magna
Charta. He wasn't speaking lightly, because I think he knew the im-
plications, if the juvenile court had really fulfilled its promise it would
have had to move away from punishment and it would have struck at
the underpinning of the criminal justice system, particularly with
reference to juveniles.
I think it is very difficult to hunt down, convict, and send through
the court system and into the training school someone, and then at
one point turn around and say we are going to rehabilitate you. I
think for juveniles it is a very difficult dilemma they are caught in.
I agree perhaps it is too soon to confront that, but I think these di-
lemmas are best confronted through successful programs and, hope-
fully, people will say that if the Massachusetts experiment works, we
don't need to have a punitive system to cut recidivism and guarantee
public safety.
Mr. Nolde. Thank you for your excellent testimony, and for the
outstanding work you gentlemen are doing as leaders in your field. I
have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Will the judge have the knowledge, when he
sentences a man to incarceration as to how long it was going to take to
rehabilitate him.
Dr. Miller. That is riglit.
Chairman Pepper. Unless you go on the theory that you have to
have a certain amount of punitive influence in the dispensation of the
sentences.
At one time I happened to hit upon the figure of 5 years as good a
maximum sentence as any other figure. Some knowledgeable pej-son
in the area said that's the figure he would have used. If you are going
to keep anybody iu prison 5 years, that i:)robably would do just about
688
as much good as keeping them in 20 years. What do you think about
that, Professor ?
Mr. Ohlin. I think I agree in general with the thrust of your re-
marks. I think that if we are going to do anytliing successfully in the
way of treatment, it can clearly be done within that time. If it is not
done then, it isn't going to happen.
In the United States we confine people longer than any of the
Western European countries, for example. I am not quite sure how
that has happened. There is also enormous variation among the States
in the length of sentence and length of average time served in the
institutions.
I think a lot of this is historical accident. It developed that way and
the systems become hard to change. Instead, accommodations develop
as in the parole policies, to alle^date some of the injustice or burden of
long sentences.
Chairman Pepper. Historically, incarceration, for that matter, is
very severe treatment of peoj^le. Historically, have those things ac-
tually served as any deterrent to the commission of crime and, if so,
to what extent ?
Mr. Ohlin. I know from my own experience with prisons, offenders
reach a point where they are described by other offenders as "burnt
out." There is such a thing as confining a person long enough so that,
in effect, his whole life and life prospects have changed. And the fear
of any risk of further confinement is so great that they don't get in
trouble when they go out. There are other offenders that I have known
and studied that deliberately get caught again once they get out be-
cause they become so institutionalized that the outside scares them.
They are really not able to take initiative and make decisions on their
own any more.
They wind up committing inept crimes that result in their being sent
back to the institution, where they usually find their old job waiting
for them.
The kind of system that produces such a result is obviously bad, too.
Chairman Pepper. On the other hand, we have the problem of peo-
ple who seem to be incorrigible, who, after being allowed two of three
releases from prison, go right out and commit a series of violent
crimes again, and upon whom all efforts of rehabilitation have seemed
to be a failure. Personally, I don't think you necessarily have to resort
to infliction of the death sentence upon that individual, but may de-
velop certain individuals who are a danger to society by their own
experience, society's experience, who do need to be required to forfeit
their right to live in a free society the remainder of their lives ? What
can you say about that ?
Mr. Ohlin. I suppose that may be. The problem always is in decid-
ing which persons those are. In the prison world, they say each pris-
oner has a time when he is ready for release, when the motivation to
stay law abiding is at a peak. Keeping him longer doesn't help; it
harms.
The problem is to find that peak with these different individuals.
It may be that there are some individuals that constitute such a terrible
threat we simply don't want to let them out, and we have in our cor-
rectional systems many who have been there for 20, 30, or even 40
years.
689
Chairman Pepfer, Several members of the committee and I were
at Attica on Friday of the tragic week there and we spent 2 days inter-
viewing officials and the inmates. I remember asking one of the in-
mates: ''Look here, when you get out of a place like this, with these
high walls and thick bars, Avith the restrictions upon your life, and
tho) activities j^ou experience here, why in the world would you ever
want to come back here ?"
"Well,"' he said, ''it does look that way, but it is not as easy to stay
out as you people think it would be. In the first place, if you have been
here for a good long while, you have lost contact with your family and
your friends ; sometimes your family has become estranged from you.
Most of us in liere don't have much education or skill, we don't have
much capacit}' to earn a liveliliood when we get out. We get out with
a few dollai-s and a cheap suit of clothes and we are on our own. The
lirst time we apply for a job they want to know if we have ever been
convicted of an offense or incarcerated in prison. We have to say "j^es."
If we don't tell them the truth they will find out later, or we live under
the. fear of it.
''Most people don't want to hire you if you are an ex-convict, and
in a little vrhile the money you got is gone and most of ns don't have
anything else. You get lonesome. Then you may look up some old
crony you got in trouble with the first time and before you know it,
you are involved again."
I thought it was a rather interesting story that he told.
Mr. Ohlin. That is a very common experience, I think, particularly
among those who have been confined for any length of time. They
really do lose touch with the outside world and the only pereons they
know with whom they can really share their experiences fully are
other offenders, ex-cons.
Chairman Pepper. The superintendent at Attica told us that all of
the men spent a great majority of their time in cells because they
didn't have money enouiffh for adequate training programs, educa-
tional programs; they didn't have money enough for jobs for the
people that were there. The legislatures just don't provide enough
monev to do in the system what knowledgeable people would like to
do. This man was the head of Attica. If he had the money I think he
would have gotten them out of Attica and in other places, scattered
around the country.
The old tendency was to build the warehouses in the rural areas
as they did in my State at Raiford. But one of the things that we
Avant to emphasize in these hearings is that knowledgeable people know
a lot more to do than they have the means to do it with. That is the
reason I brought up the matter of Federal participation. You got
started witli a Federal grant from LEAA of about $2 million. We are
enteitaining very seriously the idea of recommending the Federal
Government to aid the States, maybe as much as 50 percent.
Do you think the States would undertake these transitions if they
got as much as half of the cost from the Federal Governments Would
that be a reasonable figure to consider?
Dr. Miller. I think it would be a verv good motivation.
Chairman Pepper. Very good.
We had policemen here, as I told you gentlemen before the hearing
began, last week. The police ai'e struggling with their problems, but
690
they have to have the help of the courts and of the correctional systems,
or else they are going to be sending these people right back, again and
again.
Well, Mr, Ohlin, Dr. Miller, and Mi\ DeMuro. the committee wishes
to thank you for coming here and giving us the benefit of your
ideas. If we could do so, we would like to reserve the opportunity
to stay in contact with you for some continued help as we make our
recommendations.
Thank you very much.
The committee will recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon.
["WHiereupon, at 1 :05 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconv^ene at
2 p.m., this same day.]
[The prepared statements of Mr. De^Iuro and Mr. Ohlin, previously
referred to, follow :]
Prepared Statement of Paul DeMubo, Assistant Cosimissioner of After Care,
State Department of Youth Services, Boston, Mass.
In 1S46, a very progressive step was taken in the history of juvenile correc-
tions. The Lyman School for delinquent boys was opened in Westborough, Mass.
The purpose of this school was to separate youthful from adult offenders. Though
the founders were very well intentioned, and the quality of care was superior to
that of adult prisons, there were two basic defects in the plan. The mode of
treatment for youth in trouble became removal from the community, and the
community transferred the responsibility for its yoxith to another authority,
the state. Institutions spread throughout the country and became the essence of
juvenile corrections.
As one reviews the history of institutions, one reads of the scandals, brutality,
stupidity of certain treatment programs, the punishment that was common for
misconduct. For instance, if a youth ran and was captured, he was placed in a
cottage where he was required to maintain silence. Frequently a finger was
broken for each attempted run. In addition to the physical abuse, the subtle
psychological effects of an institutional setting dehumanized a youth to such a
degree that his only avenue to .self-esteem and identity was the wholesale adoption
of a negative or "criminal" value system.
In Massachusetts, we had a basic decision to make. Should we expend our
energies to improve our institutions, or sliould we look to other alternatives.
Given our fiscal and personnel resources, we sliould have been able to make the
institutions more livable, perhaps even adding enriching programs. Any changes
within the traditional institutions, however, would be temporary and also would
be built on the faulty premise of rehabilitation through removal of a youth from
his community. Therefore, we decided to seek nlternatives to institutions ; not
community programs as a supplement to institutions, but rather as a complete
alternative to institutions. We had a history within our agency of placing youths
in private schools, group homes, foster homes, or other purchase of service agree-
ments : but these programs were thought of as aftercare, after the youth attended
an institution. We decided to consider these alternatives as the first step when a
youth came to our Department.
We worked with community groups, universities, chiirches and individuals
to develop programs for our youth. In essence, a spectrum of services has evolved
including volunteers, foster care, family counseling, alternative schools, boarding
schools, group homes, and intensive care at private psychiatric hospitals. The
agencies we work with range from federally funded programs (i.e. Neighborhood
Youth Corps) to McLean Hospital.
As of March of this year, we had 683 children in group care, 241 in foster care,
and over 800 non-residential service slots (jobs, counseling, alternative schools,
etc.) serving a total caseload of 2.928 youth. Most of these services are delivered
by the private sector and paid for through a purchase of service agreement.
Such a delivery system actually costs less per youth than institutional settings :
however, like most state agencies we are in a tight fiscal squeeze. We have had
difliculty transferring institutional accounts into our purchase of .service account.
Moreover, as we developed better, more community oriented programs, our image
began to change from the state's youth anthnriiy to a youth service agency;
consequently we began getting more referrals. Finally, with the proposed federal
d91
cuts to Uisu and the poverty programs, I foresee our agency having to serve many
more youth. Although I have my doubts, revenue sharing may be a viable plan ;
but I strongly suspect that tlie poor, black, and nc,L;lccted youngsters will once
again be overlooked.
I don't mean to suggest here that we have all the answers. We have had and
will continue to have difficulties. Just because a person works for a private
agency, doesn't necessarily make him a better kid worker ; there are as many
untalented. fake and corrupt people outside of state government as there are
within — however, with the private sector one can cancel a contract, change a
program to reflect the client's needs or redirect monies and programs to those
most in need without fighting the frustrating bureaucracy of state government
replete with civil service protection and patronage. Also, we need to develop
more intensive care beds ; small units of S to 10 youth staffed by the best medical
and p.sychiatrie talent available. Obviously such programs are costly, but the
most damaged kids (and I am convinced that the percentage of such "hard-
core" kids is very small) deserve no less.
When we began changing the system in Massachusetts, close to 80% of our
youth graduated to adult corrections. Recent statistical studies on particular pro-
grams (our forestry program) suggest some dramatic results, but I'll leave the
studies to academia. We all know that the old system was a failure. The system
we are developing in Massachusetts has to be more successful than that, for it is
based on meeting a youth's needs on an individual basis, seeing him as a unique
personality with his own strengths as well as weaknesses and working with him
to dpvelop an appropriate treatment plan that is designed for him and not con-
sidering him a candidate for a wooden numbered bench in detention cottage.
Prepared Statement of Llotd E. Ohlin. Professor of Ckiminology and
Research Director, Center for Criminal Justice, Harvard Law School,
Cambridge, Mass.
The Center for Ciimiual Justice of the Harvard Law School has conducted a
wide variety of studies in the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services over
the past three years. First, the Center has conducted a continuing analysis of
organizational and political measures taken by the Boston Office of DYS to
define and implement new departmental policies and goals. Second, the Center
more recently has begun a continuing study of the new regional offices and their
work is designing and initiating treatment programs. Third, the Center examines
programs for youth to evaluate the effectiveness of their organization and opera-
tion. Fourth, the Center is conducting studies of the effects of these programs
on youth. Fifth, the Center is now completing an analysis of data on a subculture
study of ten selected cottages at institutions since closed during the past year
by the Department to serve as a baseline of comparison with the new community
group homes.
These research activities began when Dr. Jerome Miller first took office, in
1969, as a reform Commissioner. The basic thrust of the research has followed
the course of reform, retrospectively into the crisis events and legishitive liasis
of the refonn. and prospectively through the experiments to create therapeutic
settings within institutions to the closing of the institutions and the development
of community based alternatives. The research has documented difficult and
trying times for the Department during this period. Rut the reforms undertnken
have also aroused the interest of correctional planners across the country because
they are charting new directions for the develoi»ment of correctional services for
youth. Many problems have been solved or shown to be capable of solution. Many
more have come into focus as problems that still must be solved.
Our research with the Department can liest lie summarized by reviewing the
current status of seven mn.jor develoijments in 1972 which reflwt tlit^ centnil
thrust of the long-term reform effort. They are all closely interrelated because
they arise naturally as organizational and program jirolilems in the movement
from institution to communit.v based corrections. If institutions must be closed
because they cannot be made to serve the ends of effective treatment then a new
structure of services more closely integrated with community life must be devised.
Responsiltility for development and supervision of such services must be de-
centralized and brought closer to the community through the development of
regional offices. Even under such a system however, some centralized services
692
for the institutional treatment of dangerous and disturbed offenders may be
required. In addition a closer worlcing relationship with juvenile judges and
probation personnel must be developed by court liaison staff to coordinate deten-
tion, diagnostic and referral policies and individual case decisions. The new
network of community services must include a variety of alternative residential
and non-residential placements for individuals and small groups which were not
needed when large institutions in isolated, rural settings provided the primary
treatment resource. Since such new services are more readily and effectively pur-
chased from private agencies, it becomes essential to develop monitoring capa-
bilities to ensure that the quality of these services meet basic standards of
effectiveness. Finally it is necessary to reassess personnel requirements for this
new system, to initiate staff development programs, and to arrange reassignment,
retraining or discharge of former staff members to minimize personal hardship
and to prevent injustice. In the following sections of this report we will review
the implications and status of these seven policy problems under the following
headings : 1) deinstitutionalization, 2) regionalization, .3) programs for dangerous
and disturlied offenders, 4) detention, court liaison, diagnosis and referral, .">)
residential and non-residential placement, 6) quality control of purchased and
other services, and 7) personnel development.
DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION
A. The prohlem. — Since Dr. Jerome Miller became Commissioner of the De-
partment of Youth Services, Massachu.setts has been committed to finding an
filternative to large institutions. For a period of time the Department tried to
increase treatment effectiveness by creating within the insititutions relatively
autonomous, therapeutic cottage units in sharp contrast to the centrally ad-
ministered traditional custody program. However experience soon demonstrated
that effective development of these therapeutic programs was greatly hampered
by the rural isolation of the institutions, and the difficulty of converting a deeply
entrenched custodial sy.stem to a radically new type of treatment orientation.
B. Policu and procedure. — In the winter of 1971-72 the Department success-
fully closed two major in.stitutions, Shirley and Lyman. Lancaster was phased
down later in 1972. To do this the Department organized task forces cutting
across bureau lines. Members of the planning unit, the administrative unit, and
all four bureaus in the Boston Office participated in the planning and execution
of the closings, as did staff in the regions and in some of the institutions. A major
part of the closing of institutions involved finding alternative placements for
the youth. A new administrative capability was developed to do this, first in the
Boston Office and then in the regions. In addition, the University of Massachu-
setts placement conference was invented to provide a mass relocation capability.
Another major problem in closing institutions was the rea.ssignment of the staff.
A new personnel management .system within the administrative unit was de-
veloped to do this, incorporating a procedure of basing new assignments on
ranked preferences of the staff and special attention to those with more seniority.
C. Accamplishmentft. — Most of the youth perceived the closing of the institutions
as a welcome change. It gave them new opportunities to be involved in more
per.sonal relationships with advocates and program staff, and enabled them to
esr-ape the oppressive custodial climate of the institutions. Initially many staff
members were greatly alarmed but in the end found the closing policy not so
tuisettling as it first appeared because of the efforts clearly being made to re-
locate staff in satisfactory positions. For regional and placement staff finding
alternative placements for youth became most urgent. When federal funding of
new group homes lagged behind expectations, the staff diligently uncovered new
types of placements, particularly those involving new types of nonresidential
services. With the closing of institutions the problem for planners and adminis-
trators shifted from the slow task of staff retraining to the problem of finding
more fluid and potentially effective opportunities for contracting and purchasing
services. Now they could develop new programs more quickly, and terminate un-
snccessfn' programs more easily. Many private service agencies saw new possi-
bilities for involvement in the treatment of delinquent youth and greater oppor-
tunities to develop and try out new ideas for treatment.
D. Covtinvififj pmhTemft and veeds.- — The last vestiges of the three large insti-
tutions linger on with the haunting possibility that they may be used again as
a primary treatment resource. Planners and administrators in the Department
are convinced that the consolidation of the new policies for youth corrections
requires the Department to divest itself of these large institutions, though vari-
693
ous temporary needs for housing programs are still being met by using cottages
in them. As destructive as large training schools are in their judgment, there
is continued use of relatively large detention and reception centers. Such facili-
ties exhibit the same apparently inevitable preoccupations with custodial security
and regimentation to maintain control over large numbers of youth confined invol-
untarily even for short periods of time. Although Roslindale, the Boston deten-
tion center, is now almost entirely under private contract including a program
for committed youth, it is still unmistakably an institution in the traditional
mold, while tJie Worcester and Westfield detention centers continue very much
as they were before the changes of the last year. There is a distinct possibility
that these three institutions, especially Roslindale, can be scaled down, if not
closed, and used only for a small number of youth who simply cannot be held
securely in more open community settings,
REGIONALIZATION
A. The problem. — Even before deinstitutionalization was considered there was
a need to get bases of supervision, support, and guidance closer to the workers
in the field in the Bureau of Aftercare. "When the Department began closing
the institutions this need became urgent in the entire Department, which in
a sense eventually turned into a giant expansion of the Bureau of Aftercare.
In addition, the shift from a custodial to tre^atment orientation had already
abridged institutional autonomy with greater control lodged in the central
ofiice. With the movement toward highly decentralized community based serv-
ices, it became imperative to reallocate a large measure of central control to
the new regional offices. In this way the regional needs could be attended to
better and the communities of each region could participate more effectively and
responsibly in devising new correctional services for their youth.
B. Policy and procedure. — Regionalization began as a dual structure with
each regional office having a director of aftercare and a director of residential
treatment. In the interests of organizational and administrative clarity this
duality was eliminated. The regional director of aftercare became the regional
director, while the regional director of residential treatment became the assistant
regional director. Regional offices began to become fully operational as the insti-
tutions closed and responsibility and authority for youth were gradually dele-
gated to the regions by the Bureaus and the Administrative unit in the Boston
Ofl^ce. Thus with support from Boston Office personnel the regional oflSces under-
took to develop placement opportunities for youth referred or sentenced to DYS
by the courts. This involved developing, with the support of the Boston oflSce,
a new contracting capability at the regional level. The latest step in the process
of regionalization has been the regionalization of detention, so that there is
no longer any stage in a youth's contact with DYS where some regional ofllice
is not in charge of him. Finally efforts are being made to have the budget
organized by regions, somewhat as it was organized by institutions in the past
but with less stringent controls over intradepartmental transfers.
C. Accomplishments. — From the viewpoint of the youth in DYS regionalization
has immeasurably improved service since regional offices know more about pos-
sible placements in the communities, where the youth are. and how they are
doing. This now makes feasible successive trial placements if necessary so that
ultimately youth can hope to get the best possible placement. The staff generally
find that regionalization provides new opportimities to work more effectively with
youth — ways that simply did not seem available under the old system. Some
staff who have involved themselves heavily in the new programs are obviously
more impressed with this than others who have avoided involvement. For plan-
ners and administrators regionalization has meant a closer fit between nrograms
and the needs and resources of each region, (for example the IT. Mass placement
conference staff felt hampered by having to work on a statewide level without
a regional structure to facilitate contact with local needs and resources'). Resion-
alization has also proAided a greater degree of administrative accountability for
youth and resources that perviously was only partially available in the institu-
tions and generally not available at all in aftercare. To the community, regional-
ization has offered a negotiated involvement that was simply not part of the
older institutional svstem and would not now be possible without the more
accessible regional offices.
D. fonffnvivo prohlrms avd need-t. — VThWe the division of authoritv and re-
sponsibility l)etween administrative and program divi.sions of the Boston Ofiice
694
on the one hand and the regional offices on the other has been abrupt and gen-
erally efifet'tive, it still shows tlie marks of newness, transition, and exi)erimen-
tation. For example, records and current operating information systems are only
gradually developing to link the regions with the Boston Office. Perhaps the
greatest continuing need, associated with the transition from the institutional
structure, is to divert funds from excess staff positions left in the institution budg-
ets so that the funds can be used to expand and continue the new program in
the regional areas. This need is discussed more fully in the section below on
personnel.
PROGRAMS FOR DANGEROUS AND DISTURBED OFFENDERS
A. The prohlem. — There is widespread although not universal agreement that
most people, both youth and adult, who are now locked up need not be. There is
also widespread and near-universal agreement that some of those now routinely
locked up, both youth and adult, really must continue to be confined in the future
as well. It is also widely recognized that it is extremely difficult to separate out
with a tolerable margin of error those who need to be locked up from those who
do not. However recent experience in DYS with community placements has shown
that with youth this problem is not as difficult as is generally assumed. Many
youth clearly and obviously belong in community jvlacements. Some clearly be-
long in secure settings. A few are problematic. An obvious need that emerged dur-
ing this last year as the institutions closed was the provision of secure settings
with intensive treatment for dangerous and disturbed youth, coupled with safe-
guards that would prevent .such misu.se of these facilities as placing in them
youth who needed community resources more than secure i-estraints.
B. Policy and procedure. — Virtually all units of the Boston Office and the re-
gional offices have been involved in some fashion in addressing this problem. The
planning unit has recently been trying to formalize some of the conclu.sions and
concerns of the Department in this area. The Department has found it helpful
to make a distinction between youth who are behavior problems and youth who
need psychiatric care. For both sorts of youth the Department has found it de-
sirable to try to purchase services. For the behavior problem youth some con-
spicuous success had been achieved in the Andros program run by ex-offenders
wlio have shown an ability to relate directl.v to these youth while ''taking no non-
sense." This program stresses use of community resources within a framework
of appropriate custodial security. The DeiJartment is considering the development
of additional small programs holding up to twenty youth including one for girls,
along similar lines. For youth needing psychiatric care, the Department has been
exploring iiurchase of service from private agencies with demonstrated skills in
this area, and also exploring the possibility of a closely coordinated relationship
with the Department of Mental Health which would allow for an exchange of
services between DYS and DMH without requiring transfer of youth from the
jurisdiction of one department to another. Safeguards for the youth in these dif-
ferent settings would be ensured by developing agreed upon standards for de-
cision making and frequent case review.
C. Accomplish ments. — The main accomplLshment to this point has been the
accumulation of experience just from wrestling with the problem, and iJerhaps a
clearer idea of what needs to be done for dangerous and disturbed youth. For
some youth thus far this program has meant a more constructive form of secure
treatment than periodic and indiscriminate punishment in isolation cells. Staff
have developed a new awareness of si>ecific strategies that may help dangerous
and disturbed youth. The planners and administrators are also much clearer
about the potentialities of purchased services for these youth and nece.ssary
safeguards.
D. Coritinuinff prohlems and needs. — The continuing need is for further im-
plementation and develoiiment of the Department's experience in this area. In
particular a program is needed for girls, and the projected psychiatric treatment
alternatives may require more funds. Important also is increa.sed cooperation
and understanding between DYS. the courts, and the community as to the needs
of dangerous and disturbed offenders and the functions of the various treatment
alternatives for committed or referred youth. At present, DY'S apr>ears able to
work constructively with some judges l»etter than others in developing improved
alternatives for such offenders. Clearly in thf futui*e D\"S, largely through its re-
gional offices, must find ways to work with all juvenile judges to implement better
ways of treating these youth than binding them over to adult courts, or relying
excessively on maximum security facilities as opiwsed to constructive program-
ming in the community witli other public and private agencies.
695
Dktention. Court Liaison, and Referral
A. The prohlcm. — DYS has been concerned about the fact that nearly all youth
detained prior to trial have been held in high security institutional settings. These
settings have been seen as uiuiecessary and destructive for most youth who are
not dangerous, and for whom high security detention only aggravates their
problems. DYS staff also believes that the period of detention offers a si>ecial
opportunity to alter a youth's career of delinquency if u.sed constructively. Youth
may be labeled by a period of confinement and unnecessarily handicapped on
their return to the comnuuiity. 'J'lie staff therefore is trying to reduce the prob-
ability of commitment and to provide alternatives both to commitment and to
traditional detention.
/>*. Folictf (inil /jroc(Y/i//Y'.- -Alternatives to large high security detention facili-
ties have been developed with the help of itrivate agencies. Shelter care units
have been set up in several region.s, generally housing between ten and twelve
youth. Local YMCA's have proved to be the most productive private resource for
such facilities. In addition, foster care has been greatly expanded for detention
purposes. Regions therefore now have an array of detention alternatives ranging
from approximately twenty-tive foster homes through shelter care (six are now
operating) to the more traditional security facilities such as the Roslindale,
Worcester and Westfield detention centers. Secure facilities used by more than
one region are administered centrally by the Boston OfBce while the shelter and
foster care programs are under regional control.
To deal more effectively with needs of youth while they are still under the
care of the court, the court liaison role was formulated to advise courts about
alternative ways of dealing with youth available to the Department. The court
liaison officer considers and recommends placement possibilities within the DYS
system and sometimes, as well, other alternatives to conventional detection. Thus,
if a youth is referred or committed to DYS the time between such action and
placement is minimized, and the reception phase in many instances is no longer
distinct from detention. In seeking other options to commitment and to reduce
any labeling effect of commitment. DYS has encouraged the courts to refer youth
to DYS programs prior to final adjudication instead of cotnmittinfj them to DYS.
Referrals liave increased greatly throughout the system, with, of course, regional
variations. It is estimated that between one-fourth and one-third of all .youth
in both residential and non-residential programs are now referrals instead of
commitments.
C. Accnm i>1 i .<ih nient.<i. — The range of detention programs now means that some
youth are detained under more benign conditions than existed previously in the
tight security units. In most ca.'^-es youth also .seem to be aware of the advantages
of referral instead of commitment to placement programs. DYS staff regard the
detention, court liaison and referral programs as important components in
solidifying regionalization. Program development in these areas has largely
been taken over b.v the regional offices while quality control, monitoring, and
general administrative matters have remained in the Boston Office. The court
liaison and referral programs ahso appear to have created more constructive
working relationships with the courts. DYS is providing services which the
courts did not previously have readily available and is able to draw on a state-
wide referral and quality control system inherently difficult for the courts to
develop them.selves.
Private contracting agencies in the community find in these new programs an
opportunity to expand their own services. This is particularly the case with the
YMCA's. In a number of courts .judges and probation staff have made effective
use of the new referral opportunities and the as.sistance of the court liaison
officers in utilizing the.se alternatives. In other instances they have been critical
of the resistance of DYS staff tn use high security facilities more frequently.
Clearly there are still many unresolved policy differences between DYS and
court personnel in regard to these new programs that must be worked out in the
future.
7). Vnnliviuinq prnhlemx nntJ vreda.—WhWe the range of detention alternatives
has been greatly improved during the past year, the availability and use of the
older large security facilities, such as Roslindale continues to pose the problem
of overdue of this alternative. Physioally secure units are necessary for certain
youth, but such units should probably be small in size (no more than twenty
youth), administer a diversified program, and provide responsive care.
696
As in the past, detention services for girls lag somewhat behind the service
alternatives available for boys. The court liaison program, while providing
benefits to some courts and some regions, is still not operating across the entire
state. Efforts need to be made to make this program an integral part of all
regional systems.
Finally, a caution is in order regarding the entire package of detention, court
liaison, and referral programs. It is sound to reduce the harmful results of a
youth being committed. However, if youth are now being referred who otherwise
would not have been committed to DYS, the risk of labeling youth at an earlier
point in time is also enhanced. There is some evidence that referrals to the
Department are increasing without compensating state-wide reductions in com-
mitments. Whether the additional youth will unnecessarily acquire invidious
labels, or whether their presence will lessen the degree to which the youth who
have always been in DYS acquire such labels, is a question demanding urgent
concern and investigation. There are many issues to be resolved. If the DYS
services become less punitive, more therapeutic, and more readily available they
will be used more often. Y"et if they provide a treatment of last resort for the
most dangerous and disturbed youth all of the youth serviced may be perceived
in the same way unless clear and possibly harmful distinctions are maintained.
So for the trend toward diffusion of the punitive public image of the Department
seems to be achieving desirable results. Long run data on recidivism, not yet avail-
able, for current versus earlier commitments to the Department will help get
some of the answers. In the meantime the generally beneficial effects of the
program should be continued.
PLACEMENT
A. The problem. — One of the most pressing problems confronting DYS as the
institutions were closing was the development of viable alternatives to institu-
tional confinement. Within the context of the move to regionalize, this develop-
ment of alternative placements for youth had to be seen as in large part the
responsibility of the regional oflSces. The new placements had to be able to deal
with very different types of youth problems, including youth considered especially
hard to handle.
B. Policy and procedure. — The Boston Office had begun exploring new place-
ment alternatives in 1971, and stepped up its activities in early 1972 beginning
with the U. Mass Conference in January. A primary goal of this activity involved
the development of group homes. However when it became obvious that Gov-
ernor's Committee funding would be delayed, leaving many youth stranded as
the institutions closed, a great deal of emphasis was shifted to the development
of non-residential alternatives, i.e., either day or night programs in which yoiith
can participate while living at home or in some other setting. During 1972 much
of this work of developing placements was gradually shifted over to the regional
oflBces, imtil now virtually the entire responsibility for developing and providing
placements rests with the regions. The joint effort of the regions and the Boston
Office developed, in addition to the group homes, such placement possibilities as
Neighborhood Youth Corps, a recreation program at Mass Maritime Academy,
and programs at community colleges as well as more fostercare than was used
formerly. According to the best estimates available at this time, there are about
80 non-residential programs across the state, in which DYS places youth, about
120 residential programs and about 170 foster homes. About 600 youth are placed
in residential group homes, and about 190 in foster homes, while about 620 youth
are in the non-residential programs.
Finally, by seeking the help of private agencies to actually set up the new
group homes and other non-residential programs, DYS put itself in a position
to observe and evaluate at close quarters a wide variety of approaches to the
problem of involving the community in a broadly based correctional system
for youth.
C. AccompUshments. — Once the range of placement alternatives stabilized in
the Fall, youth became much more favorable toward the placement process and
opportunities. Youth seem to favor groiip homes and non-residential programs
which exhibit a caring environment and which provide a variety of program
activities. This is similar to youth reactions to the various types of cottages at
the former institutions discussed in an earlier Center report in October 1972.
Boston Office and regional staff are confident that specific programs can be
generated within the private sector as long as necessary financial resources
exist, and that handling youth within a community context will decrease the
likelihood of the youth returning to the DYS. Furthermore, these staff members
697
believe that communities no longer view youth problems as problems to be
resolved onlj- by youth and the state, but increasingly instead view them as
community problems which can be handled within communities. The Center's
study of efforts to neutralize community resistance to group homes suggests that
in some communities this sense of community responsibility and capability has
indeed developed significantly.
D. Continuing problems and needs. — Adequate placements for the seriously
disturbed or dangerous youth continue to be a problem, as mentioned earlier.
At this point, adequate alternative programs for girls are also few in number.
One of the serious problems plaguing placement in general is the slowness
of reimbursement. The time lag between provision of services and payment for
services is sometimes so great that contracting agencies question whether regional
directors really have the authority to contract for DYS, and in some cases as
a consequence smaller agencies feel threatened with bankruptcy. Prompt payment
and firm financial commitments are essential to build the greatly enriched net-
work of placement opportunities that a successful community based system of
corrections requires.
QUALITY CONTROL
A. The problem. — Quality control of programs is an issue which had received
little attention in DYS until the new placement alternatives were developed.
However, as these alternatives were created, the issue became inescapable. The
basic problem is how to maintain control over the quality of programs contracted
to private agencies. This type of accountability for program quality to a public
agency is something to which most of the private groups have not been accus-
tomed in the past.
B. Policy and procedure. — Three distinct units have become involved in evalu-
ation of ongoing programs. Some checklist monitoring of da.v-to-day programs
was established in both the non-residential and the residential administrative
units Vrith the Bureau of Aftercare. These two units have provided useful in-
formation about activities in the various programs. However, a recently organized
third unit under the direction of Assistant Commissioner Bakal has used a more
systematic approach for measuring what has been happening to youth being
processed through the new programs. Data has been gathered by repeatedly
visiting the programs and interviewing staff and youth. Programs are now rated
in various areas of Departmental concern about quality, such as facilities, admin-
istration and staff, controls, program, clinical services, diversion, and budget.
Information gleaned by all three units has been used by the Boston Office and
regional staff as a basis for recommending program changes, and in some instances
termination of program funding.
Along with the development of the three evaluation units the Department has
continued to develop an information system. This system will keep track of
youth, programs, and eventually, evaluative information. It is designed to be
useful both for day-to-day placement decisions and for longer run policy decisions.
It should also increase accountability of both the Department's own programs
and those of agencies contracting with the Department.
The Center has been working with the evaluation units and the consulting firm
developing the information system to strengthen the Department's capacity
to monitor its own activities and to build in routine data gathering which would
also be useful for long-range research and policy decisions.
C. Aeeomplisliments. — It is acknowledged by Boston Office staff that quality
control measures are not fully operational. However progress has been made
during the year. The fact that some programs have been terminated on the
basis of evaluations has encouraged staff in their belief that the Department can
collect evaluative data and make decisions on the basis of it. Regional directors,
a number of whom were at first skeptical of the evaluation and information sys-
tem, are now calling for more types of evaluation information to improve their
own placement decisions. Staff involved with the development if the informa-
tion system are also optimistic about what has happened during the year but
expect more systematic results from computer print-outs of information on
programs in the coming year. These staff members cite as a ma.ior achievement
the fact that the DYS system is now organized to report regularly detailed in-
foiTnation on youth and programs for use in the new information system.
D. Continuing problems and needs. — Quality control will probably continue to
be a major issue during 1973. Evaluation efforts must be expanded to include
evaluation of detention services, foster care, and non-residential services. Evalua-
698
tion procedures will have to be routinized to assure that once a program has
received a good appraisal, it will not be forgotten, and the information system
will have to be developed to the point where retrieval of information can be
very (luick, so as to contribute to day-to-day decisions.
PERSONNEL DB;VEL0PJIENT
A. The prohlem. — In a sense all of the problems of internal development in
the Department over the past few years of reform could be categorized
as problems of either program development or personnel development, and the
two are closely related. Personnel development is essential if new programs are to
work. Staff who have been loyal to the state for years and have become com-
mitted to their work and the philosophy guiding it have suddenly been asked to
change and to implement the reform policies. Not all staff can understand or
accept the major reforms now being executed. Reform thus calls for new
procedures to support and guide staff, or to train or replace them — in short new
ways of being sure that a qualified person is there and effectively doing a re-
quired job. This also means attending to the needs of many staff members for
whom the ti'ansition cannot be easy, even though the reforms may provide op-
portunities for more meaningful work with troubled youth.
B. Policy and vrocedure. — Early in the process of refonn there were attempts
to institute training programs for staff on a state-wide basis. In general these
early efforts were not very successful in terms of staff acceptance or participa-
tion. More recently major developments in regionalization, deinstitutionalization,
and purchase of service have altered staff requii'ements. Formal training pro-
grams are now run as regional training conferences with the help of the Boston
( iffice, and some training can now be done on the job under the routine super-
vision of the regional office. In addition, deinstitutionalization and the new prac-
tice of purchasing service has besides involving new staff, put old staff in posi-
tions where it has become relevant to their day-to-day routine to learn new
skills. The administration unit in the Boston Office has provided displaced
staff with opportunities to transfer to different work, including new casework
and other alternatives under the regional offices, or joining private non-profit
treatment agencies that contract services to DYS.
C. Accomplishments. — From the point of view of the staff, accomplishments
in this area are mixed. For many staff who have taken the opportunities offered
to get deeply involved in the new system, the experience has been a good one.
For others who have been unable or unwilling to break with past traditions,
the experience has been distressing. On balance it is interesting to note that the
staff union leadership, with increased understanding of what is being done and
why, has not opposed the changes as it did in earlier years. For youth the
process of personnel development has brought good results, since it has succeeded
in moving the system toward getting the new work done b.v people who are
able to do it. Also the administrators and planners feel that the personnel de-
velopment has brought about new capabilities for change and effective work
with youth.
D. Continuing prohlenis and needs. — Perhaps the most pressing continuing
need, is for the reorganization of the state budget to allow use of more of the
budgeted money for purchase of service. Much of that money is now committed
to maintaining underutilized institutional or other state staff positions. The
majority of the staff that actually operates programs for youth are now in
private agencies contracting services to the state. The budget must be revised
to reflect this fact, if continued staff development is not to be seriously hampered.
The Department is seeking this kind of budget revision and would like to
cut its staff of state employees down to less than half of its current number.
CONCLUSION
More detailed analysis relevant to many of the issues discussed here is avail-
able in the larger reports the Center has issued during 1972. The more detailed
reports are the following :
(1) Youth Reactions to Massachusetts Department of Youth Services Institu-
titms, 1970-1972
699
(2} The University of Massachusetts Conference: An Experiment in Youth
Coi-reetions
(3) Neutralization of Community Resistance to Group Homes
(4) Evaluating Large Scale Social Service Systems in Changing Euviroiuuents
(5) Subcultures of Selected Cottages in Massachusetts Department of Youth
Services Institutions in 1971
It will be extremely important to continue to follow-up the developments
described here. Tlie Center's research plans for 1973 include continued monitoring
of organizational de\elopments in the Boston Office and the regional offices,
continued program evaluation, and continued study of youth subcultures in
correctional programs.
Among the special issues which will be of great interest is the question of
whether the new developmenis add up to a net increase or net reduction of
labeling effects, as the Department moves to deal with youth earlier in their
court experience, and as youth who might not have Itecome involved with DY.S
under the old system are now placed by DYS as a referral service for the courts.
This issue nmy become particularly important if, under administrative reor-
ganization, DYS becomes merged with other agencies now dealing with non-
delinquents.
The Center's research in the coming year will also pi-ovide the tirst .systematic
information on effects of programs on youth, both in terms of recidivism and
involvement of the youth in reintegrative relationships in the community. In
addition, the coming year will provide other important followup data from a
replication of our earlier study of youth sultscultures in correctional settings,
allowing us to compare the new group home settings with the old institutional
settings, and also from continued collection of data on the organizational process
of consolidating and completing reform.
It is clear that the Department of Youth Sei-vices has embarked on a program
of fundamental change in the care of youthful offenders. It has made much
progress in changing the old system drawing on experience with new cottage pro-
grams devised within the institutions before they were closed. It is also clear
that much work remains to be done in consolidating and completing the funda-
mental changes. The Department will need the continued support of the legisla-
ture, funding agencies, the courts, and other state-wide and community groups
in completing its reform program. Reforms have not yet been completed to insure
lasting changes in the treatment opportunities available to youth in trouble. It
is not yet clear how the current reorganization of the state administration will
affect the work already done or the need to consolidate and augment the process
of constructive change. The year ahead will lie a critical one for confronting
these problems.
Afterxoox Session*
Chairman Pepper. Tlie committee will come to order, j^lease.
]Mr. Lynch, will yon proceed with the first witness.
Mr. Lyxch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
^Ir. Chairman, this afternoon the first witness is Miss Lucy Keatinof.
She is a program development specialist with the Department of
Youth Sen-ices. State of Massachusetts.
If it would be all right, Mr. Chairman, I Mould like to ask Miss
Keatinof a few preliminary questions and then ask her to introduce her
panel of five young- people who are seated behind her at the moment,
all of whom have participated in a prior institutional program in
Massachusetts and are now located in various group- and community-
based rehabilitation service programs within that State.
]Mis3 Keating, I wonder if you could tell the chairman and the
members of the committee what function it is that you serve as a pro-
gram development specialist.
700
STATEMENT OF LUCY KEATING, PROGEAM DEVELOPMENT SPE-
CIALIST, DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES, BOSTON, MASS.;
ACCOMPANIED BY MISS RUTH, MR. POLLOCK, MISS LABONTE,
MR. HALL, AND MISS BERGERON, CLIENTS
Miss Keating. I am presently working in the bureau of after care,
mostly involved right now with soliciting and working with groups to
develop programs, both residential and nonresidential, for girls, which
is an area that we need to expand on in the State of Massachusetts.
Mr. Lynch. What contacts do you have with young people who are
participating in those programs ?
Miss Keating. Right now, we have opened up the central adminis-
tration office in the Boston office for the State to be accessible to the
3'outh that we are serving and often they come to get additional infor-
mation about programs across the State.
Chairman Pepper. Would you like to repeat that ?
Miss I^ATiNG. I often meet the youth of the department of youth
services as they come into the central administration office, which in
the last 4 years since Dr. Miller has come into the State of Massa-
chusetts, has been opened up> to the youth so that they can inquire about
additional programs they might not be finding out about.
Mr. Lynch. Would you introduce the five young men and women
3'ou brought with you today and ask them to please take a seat at the
witness table with you ^
Miss Keating. From my left, will be Jim Pollock and Tim Hall,
Sue Bergeron, Debbie Ruth, and Nancy LaBonte.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, I would like to proceed with ISIiss
LaBonte.
Miss LaBonte, I wonder if you would please tell the chairman and
the committee how it was that you first became involved with the
juvenile justice system in the State of Massachusetts; what your ex-
perience was in an institution in that State; and, finally, what kind
of a program you are presently involved in.
Miss LaBonte. I first got in trouble when I was 13, just running
away and doing dope, and I ended up in Lancaster, which is an in-
stitution, and I had to stay 13 months. I was released and stayed only
on that site for one summer. I had gone back and I was put into a
foster home after that, from which I ran.
I have been on my own for the past 2 years.
Mr. Lynch. Would you tell us, please, what kind of institution
Lancaster is, and what kind of programs you participated in while
you were there ?
Miss LaBonte. It is a regular institution.
Mr. Lynch. Tell us what the daily routine was like in that insti-
tution, if you would please, from the time you got up in the morning
until the time you retired in the evening ?
Miss LaBonte. We got up at 7 :30 and we had to have our rooms
cleaned before we went down to breakfast. After breakfast we had to
either work in the bakery, laundry, go to school, or we had child care,
things like that.
Mr. McDonald. When you Avere sent to Lancaster what kind of
girls did you associate with? You were sent to Lancaster because
701
you had problems at home, you were running away. What Icind of
girls were you associated with in Lancaster?
Miss LaBoxte. Basically, all types, prostitutes, people that were
sent up for dope, people stealing cars.
Mr. McDoxALD. AVith what kind of rehabilitatiA^e services and
facilities did they provide you ?
Miss LaBoxte. I don't think they provided any.
^Ir. ^McDox-^ALD. Did you get counseling at all at Lancaster?
iNIiss LaBoxte, Yes, there was counseling, but how can you be
counseled and be locked up at the same time ?
Mr. ^IcDox-ALD. What kind of groups were they? Who gave the
counseling to you ?
Miss LaBoxte. It was four counselors ; like, everyone was assigned
to a certain counselor and she saw them once a week.
Mr, ]McI)ox'ALD. Where was Lancaster in relation to your home?
You were from Springfield or Westlield ?
Miss LaBoxte. Yes.
Mr. ]McDox'ALD. Yv'here is Lancaster in relation to that ?
Miss LaBox'te. About 60 miles away from my home.
Mr. ]McDoxALD. ]Mr. Hall, can you give us a description of when
3'ou first got into trouble with the authorities and for what offense ?
Mr, Hall. When I first got in trouble I was about 13 years old.
]My mother took out a stubborn child complaint and they brought me
to court for that. When they picked me up I had in my possession a
hypodermic needle and dope. So they put a drug charge on me and I
got sent to Lyman School at that time and I did 3 months in Lyman
School, and there was no type of drug counseling up there.
What 3^ou did from day to day was sit in their rec hall or watch
TV and go down and have your breakfast and lunch, regular schedule,
.you know. Once in a while you would get a little counseling, you know ;
but as far as reform, there was none,
]Mr, ^McDox^ALD. Can you tell the committee a little bit about
Eoslindalc? You were sent there. Tell us what year you were sent
there. At the detention center you mentioned you had been in a
number of times, can you describe for us what life was like at Roslin-
dale ? What did j'ou do from getting up in the morning through most
of the daj ?
Mr. Hall. Eoslindale, mainly — I went there in 1967, My first time
in Eoslindale vvas probably 1967. And they had basically the same
thing, you knovr. You come in and they write up what you go on,
and your possessions, what you have, they take your personal belong-
ings. You go to sit in the rec hall. You watch TV. Like their bathroom
facilities were all dirty.
If you wasn't in the rec hall watching TV you were locked up.
Like there was guys up there, sometimes beat your head against the
wall, you Ivuow, brutality. Like if the kids got out of line or something
like tliat for unnecessar}^ reasons, there was guys up there would beat
yqur head. I don't think that's no type of reform for any kids.
If they did something wrong, you know, it's not their place for
them to take out whatever happened at home on the kids, you know,
when they come to work. That's basically what Eoslindale is all about.
Mr. McDoxALD. Wlij were the fellows being beaten at Eoslindale;
do you know?
95-15S— 73— pt. 2 5
702
jNIr. Hall. No particular reason. You know, like we had to go to
bed about 9 or 9 :30. Xobody wanted to be in bed about that time, so
maybe the kids would make some noise and the guys came down one
nig-ht and started beating kids on the head — just because they were
making noise.
Mr. McDonald. Tim, you told me before you were sent to Eoslindale
15 or 20 times over a course of 4 years. Can you explain or tell them
what Eoslindale is, and why you were sent there so many times?
Mr. Hall. I was sent there so many times because I was messing
around with drugs for 4 years. I was shooting dope for 4 years, from
about 1967 until about a year ago. And in the course, in between that
time, like I was doing a lot of things I w^asn't supposed to, until I
went to the rehabilitation center.
I was in and out of Eoslindale, like, what sent me to Eoslindale,
I kept on getting busted for various things, like being on heroin and
things like that.
Every time I vrent there, nothing would be changed. Like the same
things 'would be going on, either the kids would be in the rec hall,
and that's it. Like the gym, once in awhile. And like I say, the only
thing I have seen about Eoslindale that has changed — you know, it is
just a detention center where the kids are held there maybe overnight.
If you got arrested by the police on Thursday they held you over
until Friday, the next morning, when you are arraigned.
It is like, really, the place is an institution that should have been
closed a long time ago. It is no place for anybody to live.
Mr. McDonald. How about Lyman Hall? You spent some time
there. Can you explain the routine at Lyman ; what was done for you
as a young juvenile offender; what kind of rehabilitation you got
there, if you got any at all ?
Mr. Hall. There was no type of rehabilitation at Lyman School. It
was more or less set up on the basis of Eoslindale. Like you would sit
in the rec hall, joii know. Like they had a TV room. You could play
basketball, you could watch TV. You had your choice, but as far as
setting up educational and therapeutic things, they had school up
there but it only lasted for something like 3 months and the kids only
went if they wanted to. Thev weren't forced to go or anything like
that.
It all depends on how you behaved up there whether you got tlie
chance to go home, like they give 2-day passes or the .3-day passes. It
all depends on your liehavior whether you got one.
Mr. McDonald. Explain to us how you got involved with First,
Inc. and what that program is all about, including what it has done
for you.
Mr. Hall. Well. I was out of jail for awhile and so the condition
of my parole from Lvman School was not to use any drugs again. OK.
so I came back home. I did start using drugs again. So I got it so bad
mv mother called my probation officer on me and he came with two
officers to arrest me one morning and took me to Eoslindale. I stayed
up there for a week. Tlien I was sent to First, Inc., which is a drug
rehabilitation center. That was a drug, more or less, therapy place
where they had encounters, seminars, rap sessions, and different things
like that.
703
Mr. McDonald. Toll the committee vaboiit the facility itself; v>as it
strictly for juveniles '.
Mr.IlALL. No, it was for anybody; no difl'erence as to race. It was
!all kinds of races there; no diiferencc as to age. All different ages,
not just for juveniles. They ha\o encounter groups, where you would
go in discussion, like your past life witii your family, difi'erent things.
]Mr. McDonald. Were there locks on the doors ^
Mr. Hall. 2so, there was no locks on the door. AVhen I first came
there I really didn't want to stay, but I seen some of the friends I was
with in the street and they were using drugs pretty bad and 1 said,
"If they can do it, I can do it, too." I just stayed in.
If you got lock-ed doors a person is going to want to think about
getting out. l:>ut if you have o[)en doors, and if it is just an institution
or rehabilitation center, you know, they are going to think twice about
lea\ing, think it is going to do me some good. It was a self-help pro-
gram. If you didn't want to be there you didn't have to stay there,
you know.
]Mr. McDonald. You were given a choice? When your probation
oiiicer came around to arrest you that time, he gave you the choice?
Mr. Hall. He didn't give no choice then. He just came and arrested
me in my bed, he and two policemen, aiul took me up to Roslindale.
I stayed up there a week before he would come to see me. When he
did come up there he told me I couldn't go back home. He said I had
a choice of going to Oakdale or halfway house.
T picked the halfway house, drug halfway house, because I was
still on drugs.
Mr. McDonald. Have you touched any drugs since that time?
Mr. Hall. No, I haven't. It lias been 1 year and 2 montlis.
]Mr. INIcDoNALD. When was it you went to First, Inc. ? When did you
start that?
Mr. Hall. In March.
Mr. McDonald. March of what year?
]Mr. Hall. 1972.
Mr. ]McDonald. Have you been arrested at all since that time?
Mr. Hall. No.
]Mr. McDonald. What are you are doing now ?
Mr. Hall. I am working in Waltham. at Parke-Davis. I put together
cardiographs.
Mr. McDonald. In your own opinion, if you hadn't gone to First,
Inc.. if you had gone to Oakdale
Mr. Hall. I probably would have still been on drugs.
Mr. McDonald. Thank you, Tim.
Miss Bergeron, can you give the committee a description of when
you first got in trouble; how old you were; where you lived at the
time : and whom you were living with ?
Mrss Beroeron. I was 14 years old and I liad got in trouble for
stealing cars. ]My first time I got in trouble, I got probatioiL The sec-
ond time, I got put under obser\ation foi- 2 weeks in Westfield De-
tention Center, and from there I went home and got picked up again
for loitering.
I got put away for violation in Worcester Detention Center; and
from there I went to Lancaster Reform School ; then from there I got
704
transferred to Lyman Refoi-ni School ; and from Lyman, I went home.
Mr. McDoNx\LD. Over how long a period of time was this?
Miss Bergeron. About 2V2 yeai*s, 3 years.
Mr. McDonald. How old are you now, Sue ?
Miss Bergeron. SeA-enteen.
Mv. McDonald. How was your liomelife before you started getting
in trouble? Were you getting along with your family?
]\Iiss Bergeron. I wasn't living with mj^ family. I was just living
with friends.
]Mr. ]McDoNALD. Can you descrilie "Westfield for us ?
Miss Bergeron. It is a small building and it holds about 25 people.
When I was there, my first time being there, you had to wear State
clothes, and it was like the girls' side and boys' side, and you stayed on
the girls' side and went to bed about 8 :30 and lights out by 9 and you
stayed in your room.
Mv. Lynch. You indicated you weren't living Avith j^our family.
Whv v/eron't you living with your family?
Miss Bergeron. I wasn't ; I just didn't like people telling me what to
do.
jMr. Ltncii. Do you have brothers and sisters ?
Miss Bergeron. Yes.
]Mr. Ltnch. How many?
Miss Bergeron. Two other sisters an.d a brother.
Mr. Lynch. Do they live at home ?
Miss Bergeron. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. Have they been in ti-oub^e with the juNenile authorities?
Miss Bergeron. No.
Mr. Lynch. You said you were 14 when you were first arrested for
stealing an automobile?
Miss Bergeron. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. When you were first sent to a juvenile facility, what
kind of treatment, if any, Avere you given there ?
Miss Bergeron. Treated just like all of the rest of the kids. I was
greeted when I came in and then searched. You couldn't have makeup,
or any money on you, or anything like that.
Mr. Lynch. Did vou haA'e any regular kind of counseling program ?
Miss Bergeron. No.
Mr. Lynch. Did adults deal Avith you in any particular kind of Avay ?
How did you relate to the adult correctional personnel there ?
Miss Bergeron. You are talking about Westfield now ?
Mr. Lynch. The first correctional institution you Avere sent to. Is
that Westfield?
Miss Bergeron. No, that would be Lancaster. Westfield is the
detention center, like an overstay until you are placed.
Mr. Lynch. What was the first institution you served any consider-
able period of time in ?
Miss Bergeron. Lancaster.
Mr. Lynch. At that institution did you receiA^e any regular kind of
counseling service ?
Miss Bergeron. No.
Mr. Lynch. What did you do there during the day ?
Miss Bergeron. I farmed. I Avorked on a farm.
Mr. Lynch. Did you go to school ?
705
]Miss Bergekox. Yes : I did.
]Mr. Lynch. How many hours a day ?
Miss Bergerox. About 8 : 30 to 4.
Mr. Lynch. When did you do the farming?
]Miss Bergerok. It must have been in the summertime I did farming.
It was in the summertime I did farming, all day.
Mr. Lynch. How long did vou stay in that institution ?
Miss Bergeron. Three months.
Mr. Lynch. What happened to you tlien ?
]\Iiss Bergeron. I went to Lyman Reform School.
IMr. Lynch. Why were you sent to Lyman ?
!\Iiss Bergeron. They were just accepting girls. Lyman just staited
taking o-irls in.
]\Ir. Lynch. How long did you stay in Lyman ?
Miss Bergeron. Tliree months.
]Mr. Lynch. Wliat happened to you then ?
Miss Bergeron. I ran from Lyman.
]Mr. Lynch. IVliere did you go ?
JNIiss Bergeron. I went home.
Mr. Lynch. And what happened to you then ?
Miss Bergeron. I was never caught. I v/as on the run foi' about a
yeai- and a half.
Mr. Lynch. What did you do during that year and a half? What
I'ind of life did you live. Were you committing crimes?
Miss Bergeron Oli, no.
]Mr. Lynch. Were you getting into trouble ?
]Miss Bergeron. Yes. I neA'er got picked up. I was still being myself.
Mr. Lynch. That is not what I am asking you, whether or not you
were picked up. Were you getting into trouble?
^liss Bergeron. Yes.
]Mr. Lynch. Were you going to school ?
Miss Bergeron. No.
]\Ir. Lynch. You were living full time with your parents ?
Miss Bergeron. No, no. I went home to other people, like people I
considered home then.
Mr. Lynch. Were they adults or youngsters ?
Miss Bergeron. Youngsters. Yes, about 25 and under.
Mr. Lynch. Why are you here now ? What eventually happened to
get you back in the system ?
Miss Bergeron. Then a year and a half later I got picked u}) for
grand larceny.
Mr. Lynch. Was that auto theft? (Irand larceny auto theft?
ISIiss Bergeron. No. Money.
Mr Lynch. Go ahead.
MisS Bergeron. From there I went Ijack to Westfield Detention Cen-
ter for 5 weeks. Then I got intei-viewed by (xenesis II halfway house.
Mr. Lynch. Tell us what Genesis II is.
Miss Bergeron. Genesis II is an organization that has many half-
way houses and has a school in Springiiekl. And it is just, they are
just houses where kids live in tliere and get comis(>ling.
Mr. Lynch. How many other youngsters are there in that house?
Miss Bergeron. Eight others,
Mr. Lynch. Is it all girls or girls and boys?
706
Miss Bergeron. It is co-ed.
Mr. Lynch. Describe a typical day at that place, would you please?
Miss Bergeron. We get up at 8 o'clock and breakfast is at 8 :oO, and
if you don't make it dov/n for breakfast you don't get breakfast.
Mr. Ltnch. Who cooks breakfast ?
Miss Bergeron. The counselor that is on in the morning. After
breakfast, I go to school.
Mr. Lynch. Public school ?
Miss Bergeron. No, I go to Business Education Institute, key-
punching Fchool. And a couple of kids go to school, you know, a couple
of kids go to work. Some of tliem are trying to be programed, go other
places. After school I come home and there is usually something to do
around the house.
Mr. Lynch. For instance?
Miss Bergeron. Vacuuming, anytliing.
Mr. Lynch. Chores?
Miss Bergeron. Yes ; chores.
Mr. Lynch, Are you assigned by the counselors to do that? How
does it work ?
Miss Bergeron. So many chores a weelv ajid the kids have their
names by the chores.
Mr. Lynch. You have certain assio-ned duties each person must per-
form?
Miss Bergeron. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. "What happens if you don't do your duties?
Miss Bergeron. That is mostlv up to the kids. We have house meet-
ing in tlie house and like all of the kids and all of the staff get together
and we talk about, you know, say I didn't do my chore and we talk
about something lil^e that. What restrictions I get, or maybe not even
anv. because I might have a real good reason why I didn't do it.
Mr. Lynch. How many people are on the staff at Genesis II?
Miss Bergeron. Fourteen.
Miss LaBonte. No.
Miss Bergeron. About 12.
Mr. Lynch. About 12. Tliose are all adults; is that correct?
Miss Bergeron. Yes; that is counselors and vohmteers.
^Ir. Lynch. There are more counselors than there are youngsters in
the program ; is that correct ?
Miss Bergeron. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. When you finish your chores after the evening meal
what kind of a program do you liave ? Do you have group therapy ses-
sions? Do you have jjroup confrontation sessions, things like tliat?
Miss Bergeron. Well, like the group thing would be like the liousc
meeting, we have one of them every day, either before or after supper.
Mr. Lynch. "^'^Hiat is the purpose of the house meeting?
Miss Bei^geron. To get out fce1in<rs, what you are going to do, just
sitting down and talking about tension in tlie house, and stuff like that.
Mr. Lynch. How long have you been at Genesis II now ?
Miss Bergeron. I left Genesis II and came back. It has been about 4
months all together.
Mr. Lynch. You left it and subsequently returned to it; is that
correct ?
Miss Bergeron. Yes.
707
Mr. Lyxch. Why did you leave it ?
^Nliss Bergerox. I wasn't getting along at first, when I first went
there.
Mr. Lynch. You mean you walked out, in other words ?
Miss Bergeron. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. Why did you come back ?
Miss Bergeron. Because I wasn't doing anj' good.
Mr. Lynch. What do you think about 3'ourself now ? Do you look at
yourself in any different way after your experience at Genesis II?
Miss Bergeron. Yes, I do.
Mr. Lynch. Could you tell us in what particular way?
Miss Bergeron. I don't know. Like before I went to Genesis II, even
when I was in Genesis II for the first time, lilce the counselors were on
a different level about me. I didn't want them knowing anything like
my private life. I didn't want to talk to them. Now, it is really good
to sit down and tell them what is happening. They try to help you if
you have a problem.
Like I am just not scared to go to anybody with a problem any
more like before I was.
Mr. Lynch. Do you have any idea now as to why you were getting
into trouble before ?
Miss Bergeron. No. I don't really have no reason why I got in
trouble. I like driving cars and couldn't get my license and took a car.
Mr. Lynch. Do you have a license now ?
Miss Bergeron. No. I am going down to get my license.
Mr. Lynch. Are you in a driver's ti'aining program ?
INIiss Bergeron. I am going down for my permit now.
]Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much.
]\Ir. McDonald. Mr. Pollock, can you tell ns how old vou are and
tell us when you first got in trouble?
Mr. Pollock. I am IT and I was 8 when I first got in trouble.
Mr. McDonald. A^Hiat did you get in trouble for ?
]\Ir. Pollock. I was robbing freight cars inside the freight yards
over in South Boston.
Mr. McDonald. What happened to you? Who were you living with
at the time?
Mr. Pollock. I was living with my father in the D Sti-eet projects.
I got caught. I went to court and they let me off on probation, but I
got caught again for stubborn child, and runaway, and stuff like that.
So at that time, I don't know, they got fed up with me or something.
But I lived at the youth service board in Roslindale.
'Mr. MicDoNALD. How old were you ?
Mr. Pollock. Still 8 years old. I was in Roslindale for about 3
months, and then I got home, and I was there for 2 weeks. Then I
went back to Roslindale. I got caught again for another charge.
Mr. ^McDonald, '^\^lat for this time?
Mr. Pollock. This time was running away, breaking into freights,
stuff like that. They had me down for a stubborn child, I gu. ~r I wjnt
back to the 3'outh service board and spent about 4 months tiiore, 5
months, somewhere along there. From there, I went to a foster hon."".
They gave me the choice of either going to a foster home or puttin^:-
me in, like, as we call it, in "Blue," back in those days. Because if
708
you were in "Blue," as tlie saying is, you were committed there and
you could stay there for any amount of time. At that time you could
stay there for as long as a year. You know, sometimes even longer.
And I didn't want that, so t went to the foster home. And I was at
the foster home for about 21/^, 3 years, and I got, while I was in school.
I took a knife out on a couple of kids and cut them.
Mr. McDonald. This was while you were living at the foster home ?
Mr. Pollock. Yes, after I was there for 2i/^ to 3 years.
Mr. ]\IcDoNALD. What was the foster home like ?
Mr. Pollock. Put it this way: I am glad I am home right now
because a foster home — first of all, you don't get the family care as
you would vrith your own family. Second of all. they don't really
care what goes on with you as long as you don't bother them, in so
many words.
Mr. McDonald. Did they care about what you were doing? Did
they have any interest at all, other tlian making sure you weren't
picked up by the police ?
Mr. Pollock. Like, when they moved to, like out in the country,
you know, and the way the people acted around there was like a real
big crime if you committed, like a little skipping school or something,
so you had no choice. Because they would be preaching to you, espe-
cially how they knew I was in Roslindalo before. They always
preached to you — we don't want you in trouble out here, or you will
be in a lot of trouble.
So I guess it went to my head or something, so I didn't get in
trouble for awhile. But I got fed up with it after awhile and I had
a lot of things on mv mind, and that is when those kids got sliced.
I\Ir. McDonald. You were also sent to Lyman, weren't you ?
Mr. Pollock. Yes.
Mr. McDonald. How long were you there ?
Mr, Pollock. The first time I was at Lyman I was there for about
3 m-onths.
Mr. McDonald. How old were you then, approximately ?
]\Ir. Pollock. This was later on, though. This was wlien I grew up
a little more. I was about 14. Somewhere around there, xlnd I stayed
at Lyman for about 2 months and I ran. I cnme back to Dorchester,
stayed out for 4 months, 5 months, and I got busted again, caught for
a stolen car charge and assault and battery.
So they put me back in youth service board for another 2 to 3
montlis, and I spent most of that time just sitting around doing
nothing. But then they transferred me back to Lyman again. I was
there for 3 months that time and then I went home.
That is when Jerome Miller took over the department of youth
service, and like he had a lot of programs starting out then, and like I
didn't get into any real programs, but I got a lot of help from a lot
of new people working in them. And then they cared for you, you
know.
Mr. McDonald. Before you get into that, from approximately 8
to 14 years of a^e you were in and out of various institutions. What
kind of counseling and rehabilitation did you get during that time?
Mr. Pollock. None.
Mr. McDonald. None whatsoever ?
Mr. Pollock. None.
709
Mr. McDoxALD. Did you ever have any encounter sessions or talks
witli the counselor as to why you were having- problems at the ages of
8 through 14?
Mr. Pollock. All thev took was smoke. All it meant for us was
smoke. It wasn't really worth listening to them. The way you really
felt about it, the gTiys who were trying to tell you this, you didn't
really think tliey cared so you don't really listen.
Mr. MoDoxALD. Could you tell us what you were arrested again
for — assault and battery — you cut someone Avith a knife? Tell us how
you got involved with D YS under Dr. ^liller.
]Mr. Pollock. This wasn't whv I cut tlie kid. When I cut the kid,
some other gu}' was in before Miller, so I just went to the same routnie
of Roslindale and Lyman again.
Mr. ]McDoxALD. Explain how you got involved with the DYS and
Avhat they have done for you since the time of Dr. Miller.
]Mr. Pollock. That is when I was discharged on January 7 of 1972.
When I was discharged I went up to my parole officer to see if I could
get some clothes because I didn't have no clothes, and so there I got
to Icnow my parole officer and ])eople that worked there pretty good.
And whenever I really needed money bad — I couldn't just go up
there — but if I needed it bad, they would give it to me. Or if I had
something to get off mv chest I could go to mv parole officer because
he vrould more or less listen to me and try to help.
Mr. McDoxALD. Why did you go to him in the first place, when you
had all of the encounters with the authorities for about 6 years? "V^Hiiat
made you go to your parole officer this time and consider that he
would even listen ?
.Mr. Pollock. I figured I was a little more grown up, and when I
was young I didn't think of it. The first thing I thought of was just
trouble.
]Mr. ]McDoxALD. And your parole officer did respond. What are
some of the things he did for you ?
Mr. Pollock. Let's see : He tried to get my license for me ; he
]ieli:»ed me out when I had trouble with my father and my father was
in the Jiospital with a heart attack; and he helped me out by giving
me money, drivino- me to the hospital when I needed it. IMore or less
showing me consideration.
Mr. McDoxALD. Was DYS more responsive to you ? Did you feel you
could go up to their office and talk to them at any time you wanted to?
]Mr. Poixor'K. Yes, because the wliole structure was entirely different,
l)ecause people now, under Dr. Miller, you know, after Dr. Miller was
in. they more or less, not on an adult-juvenile basis but on a person-to-
i»erson basis, and they tried to treat you like a young adult and with
intelligence. I think vou really need that to talk to somebody.
Mr. McDoxALD. What are you doing now ? Are you working?
Mr. Pollock. Yes. The department of youth service helped me got
a job Avorking vrith the department out of another building. I am
working maintenance.
jVfr. MrDoxALD. Thank you.
Miss Ruth, can you describe to the committee your experiences ? First
of all. hoAv old vou were when you first got in trouble ?
Miss TvUTiT. I first got in trouble when T was 12, truancy from school.
They gave me probation.
710
Mr, McDonald. Continue please.
Miss Ruth. They brought me to court like several times for truancy.
Then when I was 13, 1 violated probation and I went back. I was sup-
posed to go down and see my probation officer, like no grounds to arrest
me, they didn't have any warrant or anything, but they issued one
after they put me in Jamaica Plains Detention Center.
Mr. McDonald. How old were you ?
Miss Ruth. Thirteen.
Mr. McDonald. And this was basically for truancy ?
Miss Ruth. Yes.
Mr. McDonald. You were living with your parents at that time ?
Miss Ruth. I was living with my mother.
Mr. McDonald. You have a sister and brother ?
Miss Ruth. Two sisters.
Mr. McDonald. What happened at Jamaica Plains? What did they
do to 3^ou ?
Miss Ruth. I was there until November 4, and I thought I was
going home because it was my first oifense, and I was committed.
" Mr. McDonald. To where ?
Miss Ruth. Department of youth services, and I was there until
December 23, and went to ]Madonna Hall.
Mr. McDonald. Can you describe to the committee what Madonna
Hall is?
Miss Ruth. A convent school, run by the Sisters of the Good Shop-
herd. It was like a clean life. It was really strict. Never let you out of
the building by yourself.
Mr. McDonald. Were you locked in at night in your room ?
Miss Ruth. You weren't locked in your I'oom, but it was like
between midnight and 2 o'clock the doors were locked and they had
alarms.
Mr. McDonald. When you went to Madonna Hall, had you already
been to Lancaster ?
Miss Ruth. I never went to Lancaster. I was there for 18 months.
j\Ir. IVTcDonald. At Madonna ?
Miss Ruth. And then I ran.
Mr. McDonald. What kind of life did you have at Madonna ?
Miss Ruth. Going to school and going to church, and never going
out. They let you go home like every third or fourth weekend of the
month ; that, after you had been there about 8 months. You had to be
there a long time before you could even go home.
Mr. McDonald. Did Madonna Hall do anything for you? What
kind of rehabilitation did they have? Did they give you any counsel-
ing? You went in as a truant. Basically, that was your problem. "\"\niat
did they do to help you become more sociable ?
Miss Ruth. Just up there. If you didn't study, if you didn't do yoiu'
homework, they write out the white slip and for every white slip you
lose two cigarettes. And for a number of them, you get more punish-
ment. They wouldn't let you talk to your parents or anything. What
almost everyone up there did was go "to school to keep themselves out
of trouble.
Mr. McDonald. There were girls there that were committed, not by
DYS, but by their own parents ?
Miss Ruth. DYS ancl some by their own parents.
711
Mr. McDonald. Had any of the girls committed violent crimes?
]Miss Ruth. If they had, they started letting some girls in for like
stolen cars, but when I first went up there it was lilce truancy. I don't
tliinks the}^ let you in on any drug charge at all — -Truancy and
runaway.
]Mr. McDoxALD. Were you there for an indeterminate sentence?
IMiss Ruth. Yes.
Mr. McDoxALD. "What was tlie criteria; wliat would they let you
go for ?
j\Iiss Ruth. They really let you go when you were ready, and you
look around and some giris have been there up to 4 years. You never
knew when you were going to be ready. You could stay there like 4
years.
Mi: ^McDonald. How did they define "ready to go back out ? "
Miss Ruth. They didn't. I said, "I am ready; I am not going to
get in more trouble,*' and they said, "You are not ready." And I said,
"I am," and they said, '"You are not." They just used to talk a lot
of crajD. They never made much sense.
Mi: jMcDonald. Did you get any counseling ?
^liss Ruth. You used to see a social worker like a weekday, but an
hour once a week.
Mi: McDonald. Did you feel like you were getting anything from
the counseling session ?
Miss Ruth. No.
Mi: ^McDonald. What happened then ?
]Miss Ruth. Then I ran, like dilTerent times from Madonna Hall,
aiul from there I came back.
Mr. McDonald. Back to Madonna ?
Miss Ruth. I ran. Like the last time I ran, I refused to stay, so
they said, they used to always say, "If you don't smile, you go to
Lancaster." That is all they say. Most of the time you are up there,
they threaten "Lancaster." So I said, "Put me in Lancaster; I don't
want to stay," and they wouldn't let me out.
So I made them call the youth service board worker and I went
to Roslindale from there and then I got paroled to my aunt's house.
Mr. ZvIcDonald. How long were you in Roslindale ?
Miss Ruth. A month.
Mr. McDonald. What happened when you started living with j^our
grandmother?
Miss Rutil I don't know. I didn't really like it. I couldn't really
do anvthing there.
Mr. McDonald. You mentioned once before you were living with
a friend.
Miss Ruth. Yes. When I ran from my grandmother's, I went and
stayed with this girl that I stayed with another time when I ran away.
One day she was looking at the paper^ — I was at her house for a good 3
weeks — and they had in the ])aper tiiat DYS persons can go down
and won't be picked up for violation of parole.
We went down and they gave her temporary custody of me mitil
tliev could find anotlier place. They weren't working on il or anything.
Places were not available. So I was there for about G months and then
I went home.
Mr. McDonald. Back to your grandmother ?
712
I\Iiss RuTii. To my mother's house.
Mr. McDonald. Then what happened ?
Miss Ruth. Well, like I was livino- with my sister sometimes and
living with my mother sometimes. And everything was pretty good.
1 wasn't getting in no tronl)le. Then I was looking for a private school.
I went to one and I didn't like it.
Mr. McDonald. Which was that ?
Miss Ruth. Windsor Mountain School.
jMr. McDonald. This was under D YS ; they sent you ?
Miss Ruth. That isn't D YS placement.
Mr. McDonald. But they sent you there ?
iSIiss Ruth. Yes.
]Mr. ^McDonald. Could you tell the committee what you are doing
now under the auspices of DYS ?
Miss Ruth. I live in Boston and I go to school every day.
Mr. jNIcDonald. What school ?
Miss Ruth. Newman Prep.
Mr. jMcDonald. What dorm do you live in ?
Miss Ruth. It is a private dorm for girls that go to different schools
in Boston. Most go to art school; some go to finishing and career
schools.
Ml'. i^IcDoNALD. And DYS is paj'ing jour room and board. Plow
much does it come to ?
Miss Ruth. About $2,000 a year.
Mr. ]\[cDonald. Can you tell us about Newman Prep? What kind
of school is that?
Miss Ruth. College preparatory school. It is a pretty liberal school.
It is much better than the public schools in Boston. The classes are
about 2 hours.
Mr. McDonald. What kind of subjects are you taking?
Miss Ruth. I am taking sociology, history, and English.
Mr. McDonald. Tinder DYS. couldn't you just be going to public
schools if you wanted ?
Miss Ruth. If I wanted to get off parole, I suppose I could demand
to get off parole. I don't know. They don't really have to let you off
no matter how old you are. But they arc paying for everything. It is
lenlly stupid.
Mr. McDonald. Stupid, for what ?
]Miss Ruth. To get off parole. I have straightened out a lot in the
last year.
Mr. McDonald. Have you gottcji much counseling from DYS ?
Miss Rltth. They are really good. You can go into the office any time
now. There are other organizations, pri-s'ate organizations, in Boston.
]\Ir. McDonald. If it hadn't been for DYS, the system as it is now,
where do you think you woidd be ?
Miss Ruth. I don't know.
]\Ir. McDonald. Do you think you would still be going in and out
of institutions?
Miss Ruth. If it wasn't for the new system? Yes; I would have
been put in again for violation. I would be in a women's prison now.
Mr. Lynch. Debbie, why did you begin to run away from home?
INIiss Ruth. I didn't run away from home. I wouldn't go to school.
Mr. Lynch. Why wouldn't you go to school ?
713
Miss Ruth. Because I didn't like school. I wanted to go home and
lay around all day.
Mr. Lynch. You were 12 years old when that started ?
Miss Ruth. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. Do you have brothers and sisters ?
jNIiss IluTH. Two sisters.
^Ir. Lynch. AVho do they live with ?
Miss Ruth. They live on their own.
Mr. Lynch. At that time, were the three of you children living to-
gether with your parents (
Miss Ruth. Xo. Une of my sisters was in a drug rehabilitation center
and the other in a halfway house in Boston.
Mr. Lynch. When you were 12 i
^Nliss Ruth. About 12 or 13.
]\Ir. Lynch. How old was the sister who had the drug problem ?
]Miss Ruth. One of my sisters was 16, 17, and one was about 18. They
got picked up.
Mr. Lynch. Wlien did you start experimenting wuth drugs? How
old were you (
Miss Ruth. When I was about 14, 14%.
Mr. Lynch. Did you learn that from your older sisters ?
Miss Ruth. Xo ; 1 learned it at Madomia Hall.
]Mr. Lynch. At the time you were 12 and began to have truancy
problems at school, were you lining with your mother ?
Miss Ruth. Yes.
Mr, Lynch. And vour fatlier ?
Miss Ruth. Xo.
Mr. Lynch. AVhere was your father ?
Miss Ruth. He died when I was real young.
Mr. Lynch. And your mother had not remarried ?
Miss Ruth. X'^o ; she had not.
Mr. Lynch. Where do you live now ?
Miss Ruth. In Haverhill.
Mr. Lynch. Does j^our mother still live in Boston ?
Miss Ruth. I am staying in Boston but I live in Haverhill. I go
home on the weekends.
'Mr. Lynch. You see your mother now ?
Miss Ruth. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. What kind of relationship do you have with your
mother now ?
]Miss Ruth. I guess a good relationship. ^Ye don't argue no more. I
go in the house and she thinks of me as an adult. She lets me do more
or less as I want. She doesn't hassle me any more.
Mr. Lynch. In retrospect, do you have any idea why you began to
get into trouble when you were a 12-year-old girl ?
]Miss Ruth. Xo reason.
Z\f r. Lynch. Have you thought about it ?
Miss Ruth. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. Have you discussed it with your counselors ?
Miss Ruth. You know, tliere really wasn't any reason. Prob.ibly
because I wanted to be older than I was and wanted to be cooler than
I was.
714
Mr. Lynch. I would suggest that is a reason. How do you feel about
that now ?
Miss KuTii. That it was dumb.
]Mr. Lynch. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McDonald. Miss LaBonte, you stayed 13 months at Lancaster
and now you are in Genesis II. Can you contrast the difference between
the two approaches in juvenile corrections? What was your life like at
Lancaster as opposed to what you are getting now at Genesis II ?
Miss LaBonte. My life at Lancaster was really different. I was
locked up in Lancaster. At Genesis II I live a normal life. I go out to
work ; I go to school. I have no locks. It is more or less like living at
home with a family. I have some more things open to me now. At Lan-
caster, I didn't have these things open to me.
Mr. McDonald. ^Vliat did you get out of 13 months at Lancaster ?
Miss LaBonte. Nothing, because I didn't have contact with the
outside at all.
Mr. McDonald. You were isolated ?
Miss LaBonte. Yes.
Mr. McDonald. You were locked up at night ?
Miss LaBonte. Oh, yes.
Mr. McDonald. Can you compare what you are getting out of
Genesis II as opposed to Lancaster ? If you were still in an institution
like Lancaster what do you think you would be doing now; or if you
had I'ust gotten out of a school like Lancaster ? LaBonte.
Miss LaBonte. I think I would be in pretty bad shape, to be per-
fectly honest with you. I know I would have gone back to the school.
Mr. McDonald. Sue, could you tell us about your experience at
Lancaster ? Were you locked up at night, also ?
Miss Bergeron. Yes.
Mr. McDonald. Describe your feelings about being locked up at
night ? Just basically what it was like at Lancaster.
Miss Bergeron. It was bad. It was just, you knovr, like being locked
up all of the time. Like most of the girls just really tried to think of a
way to beat the system. You know, like how could they get an extra
cigarette. You never did anything because you vranfed to do it. You
had to have a reason to do it. You had to be bribed to be doing some-
thing.
If you wanted an extra cigarette, you could do something else. If
you wanted to go to the movies, you had. to be {jood. You didn't have
a choice. You couldn't really express your own feelings. You were just
playing a game with them. If they wanted to see good, jon gave them
"good" while you were in there. This is what I did.
I did as much as I did behind their back, because you couldn't let
your own feelings out. So you did everything privately.
Mr. McDonald. How about at Genesis II, what is the contrast be-
tween Lancaster and Genesis II, from your own experiences?
Miss Bergeron. Genesis II is a really beautiful home. Like some-
times you get — like kids in there who have lot worse problems than
you have and ever>'thing, but they explain to the kid, some kids need
more help and all of that. It is more like a family. You never consider
anybody just there. You know you have talked to them. You have
talked to everybody about your problems, even the other kids. Like
everybody tries to help everybody else in the house.
do
Mr. ]\IcDoxALD. What happens if a kid comes in and doesn't v.ant
to buy it ; he just reacts : lie is \-iolent ? What is the procedure ?
Miss Beugerox. That's the house meeting, see. And like v,e have
meetings about — he gives out his feelings. Like he is being violent
toward the house because he doesn't ^yant to live there. Nobod}" is
forcing him to live there and there are other things like foster homes
and other halfway houses in Springfield. And if he is feeling that way,
but he still wants to live at the house, I guess that is when a lot of
tlie counselors take over there and try to talk to him, ask him why he is
being like that.
Mr, McDonald. Mr. Pollock, can you tell us what it means to go in
and get a grant ?
]Mr. Pollock. That is when you are in need of some money for
boarding or possibly clothes, or food, and you don't have a place to
get meals at night. And you just go in, you talk to the guy.
Mr. McDonald. Who is this you are talking to? Who do you get it
from ?
Mr. Pollock. It could be from one of many persons, like the parole
officer, deputy commissioner, commissioner, or the regional supervisor.
Mr. ]\IcDoxald. How much can you get ?
]Mr. Pollock. Right now, I don't get any money, except my pay
monev. But before, like when I wasn't coming along too good I used to
go in probably once a week and get about $15 for some living expenses.
;Mr. ]McDox^\xj). Mr. Hall, do you think you are going to go back
on drugs now ?
Mr. Hall. I feel as I won't go back to any drugs.
Mr. McDonald. You think the program at First, Inc., is going
to keep 3'ou off drugs ?
Mr. Hall. Yes; because I have contact with the house, you laiow,
like I can go there and give up my urine or I can go to there in counter-
groups, if something is bothering me.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. ISIann ?
]Mr. !\Iann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Debbie Ruth, how many delinquents are there in school at Newman
Prep?
Miss Ruth. I don't think many people are delinquents. A lot of
people are there on the GI bill, a lot of people much more older. Most
of the people in classes, most classes, 20, 21. They range like, the
students.
Mr. Mann. Where is Newman Prep ?
Miss Ruth. In Boston.
]Mr. jSLvNN. Most of the students there are just straight people from
the Boston area ?
Miss Ruth. No. A lot of people didn't like public schools. There
are some, I guess well-to-do families, that sent their kids there because
it is a good private school. Other people are there on GI bills. A lot of
old people. The classes are really good because people are paid to go
there. So, you know, like they don't cause any trouble for them, be-
cause they just throw them right out.
iNIr. Mann. You have no trouble getting along with anybody be-
cause you have been in trouble ?
Miss Ruth. No.
Mr. Mann. Mr. Pollock, I notice you are working at a DYS facility
716
Mr. Pollock. Yes, I am.
jMr. Mann. Are you required to work there or are you under some
probationary arrangement ?
Mr. Pollock. If you consider that I am being forced in there, too,
like keep away, out of trouble, no ; I don't have to work there.
Mr. Mann. Wlien you got into the last trouble, March of 1972 — is
that when it was ?
Mr. Pollock. No. It was more or less around November of 1971.
ISlv, Mann. What was your sentence? ^Miat did the judge and the
officers, or tlie probation or youth services people, instruct you to do ?
Mr. Pollock. It started cut with the court and they instructed me —
they didn't instruct me — they forced me into Lyman. I wasn't in-
structed nowhere.
Mr. Mann. Who got you out of Lyman ?
Mr. Pollock. I done my time and I was not discharged, but paroled
home, and I lived with my aunt. The department of youtli services got
in touch with me, or I got in touch with them, about how I was getting
along in my house at that time.
Mr. Mann. That is how you got involved with the department of
youth services ?
Mr. Pollock. The first time I got involved with them, under Dr.
Miller, is when I went up to see my parole officer. I think I mentioned
it before.
Mr. ]\LvNN. Are you working full time at the place ?
Mr. Pollock. Yes.
]Mr. Mann. What are your plans ?
Mr. Pollock. ]My plans for the future are to join the service, the
IMarine Corps. And that will be very soon.
Mr. Mann. How old are you now ?
Mr. Pollock. Right now I am 17.
Chairman Peppek. Mr. Winn ?
jMr. Winn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I notice in several of your testimonies, particularly tlie girls, you
said they wanted to be treated like okler people, or referred to as
adults, but I wondered if they realized then, if they felt this way at the
time they were 8, in one case 12, and the other case 14.
Miss Bergeron. I don't think it is the fact, you know, we just wanted
to be treated as adults. In reform schools you are treated as though
you are not — you are not decent, you know.
Mr. Winn. I meant prior to that.
Miss Bergeron. Yes. Everybody likes to be treated as an adult. You
like to be talked to on the same level, don't like to be talked down to all
of the time. Halfway house — well, the halfway house we are in we are
not talked down to. You know, they talk to us like we can be helped.
In reform schools, they talk like— you are never ever talked to. You are
just told.
If you don't want to do it, j^ou will be locked there all day.
Mr. Winn. In other words, in these institutions you are treated like
a number ?
Miss Bergeron. You know, you are just not treated.
Mr. Winn. Not treated like a human being ?
Miss Bergeron. On a favoritism basis, too. If you were good you got
more and if you were bad, and you weren't being helped when you
717
were bad, you were just being bruslied aside. All of the good people got
what they wanted and everything. You knew you had to be good. There
weren't really any choices. You couldn't sit down and talk about it.
Mr. AVixx. Going back prior to that, when we all started getting
into trouble, I believe ]Mr. Pollock was S years old when he first got into
trouble. The problem that bothers many people, many parents, is hoAV
do you sit down to discuss with an 8-year-old ?
There is nothing wrong with being 8, but an 8-year-old usually
thinks he should be 10 or 1:2, and maybe Debbie thought, when she was
12 and got into trouble, maybe she thought she should be talking and
acting like she was 16 or 18.
This seems to be one of the tendencies or troubles in many cases. I
just wondered what would happen when you all become parents. Hoav
you are going to talk to an 8- or 12- or 14-year-old person. I wonder if
any of you ever thought about it ?
^Ir. Hall. I have a son.
]\Ir. WiNX. Had you ever given any thought about how you are going
to communicate with your children and not have them think you are
talking down to them or not interested in them ?
Mr. Pollock. Ts it all right if 1 say something?
INIr. "Wixx. Sure.
Mr. Pollock. T^Tien I have my son — who knows when that will be —
but
]Mr. Wix'X'. It might not be a son, too.
Mr. Pollock. OK. I ain't going to be ashamed to tell them I was
with the department of youth services and I had got in trouble, because
I did learn by my mistakes. But in order that it might help mj^ son at
the same time, becau.se I don't think the department is going to change
that much more better than it is now. It ain't perfect now, you knoAV,
anyways.
I want to talk to my son, tell him I have been in trouble, tell him
when I think he is doing wrong or doing right. And, you know, be
more or less like a pal to him so he will listen to me at times.
Mr. Wtxx. I wasn't really talking about the troubles you have had.
That is up to you. whether you want to tell your children.
INIr. Pollock. You said, how would you sit down with your son and
talk to him-
Mr. WiNX. Eight, but
]Mr. Pollock [continuing]. When you are talking about crime.
Mr. Wixx. I am talking about basic communications, because so
many young people don't think they can communicate with their par-
ents until it is too late.
Mr. Pollock. In a lot of cases, they are afraid the parents don't
want to communicate witli the son, either.
Mr. Wixx\ It is about 50-.50. I am not going to get into statistics,
but many times I ask the young people, "Have 3'ou ever tried ? When
did you ever try to communicate with your parents and on what
subject and when do they turn you down?" And when you throw it to
them like that, they really can't think of any one thing.
ISIaybe they developed an attitude, antiparent, or antiestablishment.
Another thiuir that really interests me, and I would like for any of
you. if you feel you would like to, including Miss Keating, to tell me
what, in the program, do they do, because I believe it was Debbie
95-15S — 73 — pt. 2 6
718
who said that in some cases she couldn't do what she wanted to do.
Well, I am sure that what individual young people want to do can
vary quite a bit at the time maybe. But in the program, is there any-
thing now that allows you to do what you want to do ?
What do you want to do ?
Miss Ruth. Yes. Like where I live, I can do just about anything I
want as long as I can go to school. I can sign out an}^ night I want.
It is completely my liberty in tliis private placement.
Mr. Winn. Do they have any organized recreation ? Whether yoimg
people actually realize it or not, they need, and most of them desire,
recreation. If it is sports, or if it is dances, or if it is plays, if it is
musicals. You can go on, and on. and on. What type of recreation do the
individuals like ?
Miss Ruth. They mostly are models and students. They live on a
totally different level. They are ahvays going out seeing their friends.
It isn't a DYS placement. I guess I am the first DYS person that ever
lived in tliat kind of dormitory.
Mr. Winn. You are meeting people from all different walks of life,
all different interests ?
Miss Ruth. Yes.
Mr. Winn. And in the past, in the institutions, you were meeting
people from all walks of life with one basic interest, and that was
the fact you had all been in trouble and you shared each other's
problems ?
Miss Ruth. Yes. But most of them were from like the same, like
Jamaica Plains. Most of the people were from the same area. A lot
of people knew each other on the outside. A lot of people like to go
there because they meet a lot of friends they hadn't seen for a long
time, Jamaica Plains, or the other places, just Boston.
Like the girls more or less come from the same type of background.
Mr, WiNX. Going into the institutions again, do they have anything
in the way of recreational programs for the girls ?
Miss Ruth. Like Madonna Hall, they used to have movies on Sun-
day nights that you had to see. No one really wanted to see them.
Mr. Winn. You probably had seen them before?
INIiss Ruth. Xo, they had good movies. They just didn't let you out
and that is what the girls wanted to do, go out and take a walk. I was
there like 14 months before they even let me out one time by myself to
take a walk, except for going home on Aveekends.
Mr. Winn. Let's be practical about it. If they let you out to take a
walk
Miss Ruth. I would run away.
Mr. Winn. Yes. Some would run away. Some would get in more
trouble.
JVIiss Ruth. Wlien the girls got out, they ran away. Every time they
went on a trip, they came back and said that so-and-so was missing.
The girls did this all of the time. Until, like some girls found out if
you broke the crank off the window and removed it, they had detention
school, you couldn't — I think everybody tried.
Mr. Winn. In DYS you really don't have anything to run from, do
you ? You are not working behind somebody's' back ? You don't feel
719
you are working behind somebody's back, if you have the tendency to
leave school, for instance ?
Miss Ruth. Oh, yes. If I want to leave, I can leave. I couldn't run
away if I wanted to.
Mr, Wixx. But as I gather from your testimony, you have this feel-
ing that you ought to continue to go to school, or else that you really
w'ant to go to school, or both ?
]\liss liuTii. I want to go to school.
Mr. WixN. What do you want to be ?
Miss Ruth. I don't know.
yiv. WixN. What would you like to be ? You said you always wanted
to be older when you were } ounger. What would you like to be?
Miss Ruth, I don't know.
Mr. WixN, Would you like to be a model ?
]Miss Ruth, No.
Mr. Winn. No?
Miss Ruth. I am not about to go into that. I think they are pretty —
the girls at my dorm, they are really different, the models.
Miss IvEATiNG. Haven't you talked about wanting to work for the
department of youth services ?
Mr. Winn. Well, let's say some of them do, but to me, and I hope
you don't take this the wrong w^ay, you can't hire all of them in the
department of youth services.
Miss Keating. (3h, no.
jSIr. Winn. So, let's say that Debbie or Tim. or whoever it might be,
wants to go in the Marines. That's fine. I just wonder where they
want to go. A^^iat their desire is now, what they want to be now.
I am trying to figure out if they really have an objective yet. I think
they do, but I don't think they know how to express it.
Miss LaBonte. I want to be a counselor.
Mr. Winn. That is back with youth services, and that is very com-
mendable. We certainly need tliat, but the society can't hire all of you
to go back into youth services.
]\Iiss Keating. Xancy, tell Mr. Winn several of the different pro-
grams in the last couple of weeks you have mentioned you had inter-
views with for possible employment, and other training programs tliat
you have been considering. Just the broad range on what you might
do Avith those things in the future.
Miss LaBonte. Well, I thought about going to AIC College. I
don't know, it is hard to really giiess what you really want to do
because I tried to volunteer over at Legal Aid and they didn't need
anybody, it seems. I tried to get into a page program, which is for
pregnant girls, and I couldn't because I didn't go to school on
]\Ir. Winn. Do you feel in some programs that you might want to
be in. you are blocked?
Miss LaBonte. No.
Mr. Winn. I mean tliat you are blocked because of your background.
You don't think that is stopping you in any way?
Miss LaBonte. I don't think so.
Miss Keating, Could you tell him a little bit about AIC ?
]\[iss LaBonte. AIC is a 4-year college program that I was interested
in. to get an education.
720
Mr. Winn. Your resume says that you stated in some interview that
you had a stable family life throughout your childhood and that you
were not belligerent or unhappy with your family setup. At the age
of 13, you started running away. I just wondered if that was because
of something that happened at home. We don't like to get into personal
problems as we could go on for months if we got into all of those.
Was is just something that came upon you at the time, or was it
because other young people that age were beginning to run awa^^ from
home ?
Miss LaBonte. No; I think it is more or less because I started
hanging around with older people who could do more because they
were older.
Mr. Winn. Had more independence?
Miss LaBonte. Yes.
Mr. Winn. At least, you felt they did ?
^iiss LaBoni-e. I guess so. I sort of followed them, doing dope and
running away.
Mr. Winn. Do you think a lot of young people g,et into trouble
because of their peers ; because of the groups they run around with ?
Miss LaBonte. Not necessarily,
Mr. Winn. We had testimony last weelc about a group that ran
around together. The oldest one was 18 or 19, and there was one at 15.
The other one at 15 — the older ones had all been ai-restecl many times —
had never been arrested. We felt very shortly that t]ie 15-year-old was
going to be in trouble somewhere. The odds are, because of the group
he is running around with, he is going to get in trou.bie. This happens
in a lot of cases.
You all talked about the DYS program. T)o you think other States
ought to adopt this program? Would you be willing to help and go
into other States to help testify and to talk to other people, young
people that have been in trouble, if other States would adopt a program
of this type?
Miss LaBonte. Yes; I think it would be really important that we
had something like that and that the}' did close down institutions.
INIr. Winn. Do you think you can communicate with other people
your age that have been in trouble?
Miss LaBonte. Yes. I have been. Sue and I more or less work with
kids at the house.
Mr. Winn. I have no further questions. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. I would like to know hov,' many of you attiibute
your having gotten in trouble to 3'our home life, home conditions,
family conditions ?
Mr. Hall. I have.
Chairman PeppePv. Let's start over here with ]\riss LaBonte. Your
family didn't have anything to do W' itli your getting in trouble ?
Miss LaBonte. They had a little bit to do with it, but not that much.
Chairman Pepper. What about you?
Miss RuTii. I don't know. I got in trouble myself. I was th.e one. It
was m}' fault. No one pushed me into it.
Chairman Pepper. Miss Bergeron, what about you ?
Miss Bergeron. You are asking about my family life?
Chairman Pepper. Did your family life or conditions at liome have
anything to do with your getting in trouble ?
I
721
Miss Beroeron. No.
Chairman Pepper. What about you, Mr. Hall?
'Sir. Hall. I think my family life did. Because, like, OK. Like
they say, one miffht be bad out of the family. Like my sister, you
know, like she gets into trouble, and my brother is doing time in
Norfolk noAv. So, like the majority of m}' family found it hard to get
along with my mother because my mother and father were separated
wlien I was real young.
Chairman Pepper. Yours was a broken home.
]\rr. Hall. Yes,
Chairman Pepper. Were your mother and fatlier living together?
Miss LaBonte. Yes.
Chairman Pepper. Yours?
Miss Ruth. My mother is a widow. My father died.
Chairman Pepper. Are your mother and father li\ing together?
]\[:ss Bergerox. No.
Chairman Pepper. And your mother and father were separated.
AVhat about you, Mr. Pollock ?
Mr. Pollock. My family had a lot to do with my getting in trouble.
My mother was deceased and this was one of the main causes of it,
I would say.
Chairman Pepper. Tlie next r^uestion I want to ask each one of you
is, did your getting in fiouble have anything to do with drugs, or was
it related to drugs ?
Miss LaBonte. a little bit of it did.
Chairman Pepper. It was?
;Miss LaBoxte. a little bit.
Chairman Pepper. ]Miss Ruth?
Miss Ruth. I never did dope until I was in the DYS placement.
I Avas with DYS almost a year before I ever touched dope.
Chairman Peppp:r. "What about you. Miss Bergeron ?
]\riss Bergerox. No.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Hall, you did ?
Mr. Hall. Yes.
Chairman Pepper. What a1)out you, Mr. Pollock?
j\rr. Pollock. No.
Chairman Pepper. Yon (lid not?
The next question concerns your education. You are going to be a
counselor, M\ss LaBonte. Do you intend to try to get a high school
diploma to pursue your education ?
IMiss LaBoxte. Yes.
Chairman Pepper. Now, you are already going to Newman Prep.
You will stay on to finish school; you realize now the value of an
education.
]\Iiss Berjxeron, T notice vou are going to work for the Monarch
Life InsTirance Co. How far did you get in school ?
]\tiss Bergerox"^. Eighth grade.
Chairman Pepper. Don't you think it would be helpful to you if you
Avould go back to school in some way, night or some other time, and
oet your high school diploma and maybe even take an advance coui'se
in business, business training, secretarial training, et cetera?
Miss Bergerox. I am taking key-punch training.
Chairman Pepper. Don't 3'ou think it would be helpful to you ?
722
Miss Bergeron. Yes : it would be lielpf ul to me.
Chairman Pepper. All of you are very attractive people, and I am
afraid you are going to be handicapped if you don't. Some people over-
come it. You have a very good personality and very charming manner,
and all of that, but I think it would be helpful, if you Avould get an
education. You can go further, live a much better life, if you could get
a little better education.
A veiy small percent, 5 percent, of the people in the labor market, are
unskilled. I mean, there is only room f oi' 5 percent of the working force
in unskilled occupations. That is what it means. So you have got to get
a job in that 5 percent, most of yon, if you don't have education enough,
training enough, to get up into a better job.
Mr. Hall, what about your education? Do you want to go on and
finish ?
Mr. Hall. I plan to go back to school in SejDtember.
Chairman Pepper. What about you, ]Mr. Pollock? I know you hnve.
a job, too.
jSIr. PoLLonlv. Yes. I am going back to school.
Chainnan Pepper. How far did you get in school ?
]Mr. Pollock. Tenth grade.
Chairman Pepper. How far did you get. Mr. Hall ?
Mr. Hall. Tenth grade.
Chairman Pepper. Well, now, the nest thing is, do you think this
youth program, you liave been a part of. is about the best way you know
of for pu1:>lic desire to ti'v to do something about young people whoget
into trouble ? Have you any suggestions as to what would make it
better? We will start off wiih you, Miss LaBonte.
Miss LaBonte. Xo, T don't have any suggestions right now.
Chairman Pepper. Miss Ruth, do you have any better program to
suggest ?
]N[iss Ruth. Xo, sir. DYS, they are reallv running good. They are
i-eally short on money. Tliey ai-en't financed well enough. Tliey could
do so much more, but it is mostly lack of mone}-. They don't really
have enough.
Chairman Pepper. You mean, the youth services pi'ogram could do a
little more if they had more money ?
3.1iss Ruth. More monev.
Chainnan Pepper. What do you think. ]Miss Bei'gei'on ?
INIiss Bergeron. I agree with that, definitely. They need more money.
Chairman Pepper. Ha^"e you any suggestions as to how this program
could be improved ?
Miss Bergeron. No.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Hall ?
Mr. Hall. I don't hnve no suggestions on liow it can be improved
because I really don't have that much contact with the department. I
am working on my own. They wanted to put me back.
Chainnan Pepper. You are now woi-king on youi- own ?
Mr. Halt.. Yes.
Chairman Pepper. Isn't it fun to be your own man again ?
Mr. Hall. Yes.
Chainnan Pepper. Be free of drugs ?
Mr. Hall. It is. It reallv is.
723
Chainnan Pepper. What about you, Mr. Pollock ? Do j'ou have any
suo-gostions as to how the projrram could be improved ?
]\Ir. Pollock. "Well, I ain't going- to saj' it is the best, but there is a
lot better that could be made out of this, but it is a lot better than what
has been. So I just leave it at that.
Chairman Pepper. It is obvious to me that one of the reasons this
program has succeeded as well as it has is because it individualizes and
personalizes what it does for you. It is dealing with you as an individ-
ual. There must be pretty wise counselor-s. These are the people that are
in the counseling part of this program and they try to find what your
trouble is, what Icind of a person you are. and what 3'ou will best
respond to, what woukl be best for you. Don't they try to do that?
Don't they trv to individualize the program ?
]Mr. PIall. Yes, they do that.
]Miss Bergeron. They do.
Chairman Pepper. Whereas, in the big institutions where th(M'e are
hxundreds of thousands of people 3'Ou can't do tliat very well. So it has
an obvious advantage over the other.
All I can say to you folks is this: Tliis is a great country we live
in. It is an interesting world. There are so many wonderful tilings to
do, so much fun to be had, and the like, but you know you have to be
able to make your way or fit into society some way or another. Tliere
are a lot of things about it that ought to be improved, ought to l)e
changed.
I have great sympathy for some of the problems of younger j^eople
growing up today in a changing world, changing society, trying to
lealize some of their dreams, aspirations, having their individual
personalities, feeling they want to live that kind of life, and nobody
can say for sure just what is the best life. But anywa}', it is wonder-
ful you have been able to get into a program where you are finding
yourselves, every one of you, by what you said here today.
ISIiss Keating, they all indicate they have a new attitude toward
life, they enjoy life. I believe all of you are getting much more fun
out of life, aren't you ?
Mr. Hall. Yes, much more fun.
Chairman Pepper. That is wonderful. Are you, Mr. Pollock, enjoy-
ing yourself? Mr. Pollock already said he is having fun. You can tell,
he has a big smile on his face. You have a great future ahead of you.
We appreciate your coming.
Miss Keating, I want to commend you on what you are doing. I can
see the rapport you have with these young people and how much you
mean to them, and that means you are touching a beautiful life and
making it better.
Thank you all very much for coming.
We will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
[Whereupon, at 3 :45 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene
at 10 a.m., on Tuesday, April 17, 1973.]
i
STREET CRIME IN AMERICA
(Corrections Approaches)
TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1973
House of Representatrtes,
Select Co3iimittee on CRiisrE,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 311,
Cannon House Office Building, the Honorable Claude Pepper (chair-
man) presiding.
Present: Representatives Pepper, Mann, Range!, Steiger, and
Keating.
Also present: Chris Nolde, chief counsel; Richard Lynch, deputy
chief counsel; James McDonald, assistant counsel; and I^roy Bedell,
hearings officer.
Chairman Pepper. The committee vriW come to order. I am sorry
that some of our members are a little late this morning, but we have
many very important witnesses and I want to give full opportunity for
those witnesses to testify.
I see there are certain newspapers in the local area that write, every
day, long columns about crime, yet right here in tliis room we have
some of the best authorities of tliis country present to talk about how
to curb crime and how to deal with crime, but they don't seem to mani-
fest any interest in that, unfortunately.
Yesterday, people disclosed to us an entirely new system of dealing
with juvenile offenders. They are at the beginning of the pipeline that
produces a group of criminals, who are the primary offenders against
the law in the country. AVe had a Harvard professor, plus Dr. ]Miller,
who initiated the Massachusetts program, and the gentleman, who is
the assistant director of it at the present time.
Then we had five young people who have participated in tlie old
program and are now participating in the new program. And we
found out, for the interest of the taxpayer, tliat the new program not
only provides less repeaters, less recidivism, but it costs less to the tax-
payer than the old program, which I would think v\ould be a matter
of great public interest.
But any way, all we can do is try to find out what is the best tliink-
ing. That is Avhat these hearings are about, to find out the best thinking
in our country in dealing with the subject of violent crime; what can
be done to curb it : to reduce it to a tolerable level.
"We have dealt with the aspect of tlie police. Last week we had 1:2
of the outstanding police departments of tlie country represented here
to tell about the innovative and imaginative programs that they had
(725)
726
initiated in their areas wliicli have led to the reduction of crime, wliich
we liope will be emulated by other police departments in the country.
This week we are dealing with correctional institutions, primai-ily
putting emphasis upon the younger people. Because, as they say, they
are tlie beginning of the pipeline. In the latter part of the week we
will have two outstanding men, one from the American Bar Associa-
tion, the former Governor of New Jersey, Governor Hughes; and an-
other man, Mr. Skoler, who is also a very outstanding authority on
the subject of adult penal institutions.
This morning we have two very distinguished witnesses, very
knowledgeable and outstanding in this field.
]Mr. Lynch, would you proceed.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman. I am privileged to present to you, Mr. Kenneth
Schoen. the Commissioner of Corrections for the State of JSIinnesota.
Mr. Schoen is a native Minnesotan. He holds both a bachelor's and
master's degree in sociology from the University of Minnesota. He
began his career in corrections as a parole agent in 1957. After that,
he became snpei'intendent of a GO-bed facility which dealt with de-
linquent adolescent boys.
Subsequent to that, he served as superintendent of the ^Minnesota
State girls' school, and after that, he was an assistant commissioner
of corrections for the State of IMinnesota. He was appointed in
Janua7-y of 197-^ as the commissioner of corrections.
As vou will recall, Mr. Chairman, he is the successor to Dr. David
Foeel, who testified before this committee last year, in relation to
prisons in turmoil.
Cl^aivman Pe"per. He made a very excellent presentation.
Mr. Lynctt. Mr. Schoen, if you have a prepared statement would
you please deliver it at this time ?
Chnii'man Pepper. ]Mr. Schoen, we are very pleased to welcome you
here today. Thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH SCHOEN. COMMISSIONER, STATE
DEPARTMENT OP CORRECTIONS, ST. PAUL, MINN.
Mr. Sphoe^t. Tliank you. ^Ir. Chairman, committee members. Mr.
T>.vn<"]^ : T would like to tell you something about the scene in my State.
We fep1 in IVIinnesotn that we have done some thino'S that are interest-
ing and have heew effective in the terms that you, Mr. Chairman, have
mentioned. We feel we have been effective in controlling some of the
behaA-ior to which the community objects to, and at the same time
showinc some worthy cost figures. But by no means do we feel we have
ari'ived at the solution there.
I would like to give you a brief history of how things developed :
In 1947 Ave saw the beo-innin.T>: of a real effort to do somethin.o- for
iuveniles by the formation of tlie youth conservation commission —
YCC — patterned after the California plan, which brought together
iuvenile institutions and probation parole services in the State. What
if also did, really, was introduce the medical model, in which we
diagnose an individual's problems at a reception center, and then
attempt to fit the treatment to the individual.
727
I iiiiirht get ahead of my story and say we since junked that model,
but I will get back to that in a moment.
In 1959, we formed the department of con-ections and two things
folk)\ved that are signihcant. One is that we pulled together the adult
and juvenile programs under one department. I think that is signifi-
cant in a State the size of ]\[innesota, which is about 10 times the
size of ^Massachusetts, geographically. Geograph}- tends to kill cor-
rectional programs because you can't get to the people or they can't
get to the services. This step toward combining the administration of
these ]vrograms at l(>ast, makes some sense and it is in this direction
we lia^e been going since 1959.
At the same time, legislation was introduced to provide a probation
subsidy in all 87 counties of the State. "What this did was begin a trend
toward the development of comnumity services at the local level. These
probation services were administered by the local county, invohnng
all counties in jNlinnesota. The three large Minnesota counties were
excepted for some reason. I think the reason was that they had ex-
teiisi\-e services already. But tlie result was that every single juvenile
who came into court would have a probation officer at the local level.
During the 1960's, we saw the rise and fall of institutional options.
It was interesting in that the beginning of 1960 we opened the decade
Avith one camp and two juvenile institutions. By the end we had three
c-am])s and three juvenile institutions. There was a great deal of
ijiterest in building a security facility for juveniles. Thank goodness
that didn't come to pass; however, it came very near. The population
was very liio;h in the institutions in the beo-innino- of the decade; to-
wai'd the end tiie}' were clovsii. Right now they are at an all-time low.
Curi-ently we have only one camp and there are plans in the legislature
now to junk that facility also.
In the late 1960"s. and early 1970's, we have seen the development
of community alternatives beyond probation. Probation is certainly
a community altei-native, but beyond that there are halfway houses,
group homes, and other types of facilities to extend the correctional-
ty])e programs into the comnmnity.
These were again largely operated by the localities as opposed to
being operated by the State. This is in sharp contrast to other States
ar(mnd the country. It is our belief that we deliver a better service if
it is operated locally and administered locally to respond to local needs.
I will describe to you later a rather elaborate plan we have to imple-
ment that. In fact. I have to go back to testify on a bill today in the
Minnesota Legislature. Hopefully, we will see that thing begin in the
proper form.
The community alternatives were developed because there was a
recognition of the chasm l)etwGen the institution and probation. This
chasm was just simply too great. It was no easy transition from an
institution back to the community. We needed alternatives to the in-
stitution. And we were becoming quite aware, in the late 1960's that
the institutional costs were quite high. Currently, they run as high as
$14,000 and $16,000 per year, per bed; exceedingly expensive. About
75 i)ercent of all our budget is consumed in institutions, which includes
adult institutions.
Chairman Pepper. "What was the figure ?
728
Mr. ScHOEx. xVbout 75 percent. Our annual corrections budget at
the State level is $22-$23 million; 75 percent goes into institutions,
largely juvenile institutions. Those are the more expensive ones.
Another interesting thing is the great contrast between our juvenile
institutions and the adult institutions. The adult institutions, I dare
say. are just a disgrace.
Chairman Pepper. Let me interrupt you just a minute. I visited
Eed Wing and no doubt you will mention that in your presentation.
I was enormously impressed by what you arc doing there and I hope
th at fine i nstitution is going f orwa rd.
Mr. ScPTOEX. Mr. Chairman, that institution is doing very well.
That in.stitution and the one at Sauk Center are particularly in con-
trast to the adult. In fact, we are finding at Red Wing that we are
getting about 80 percent success of youngsters who have left the
facility. Back in 1969, before the program that you witnessed began,
it was about 50 percent. That is a dramatic change.
Chairman Pepper. Who was the professor at the University of
Minnesota that initiated that program ?
Mr. SnioEX. Two persons were involved there. Prof. Dick Clen-
clenen and Harry Vorrath, who is now out in ]\Iichigan.
Chairman Pepper. I met both of them.
Mr. ScHOEX. He is doing group work out there.
As I was saying, we saw an extension of options in the community
in the late 1960*s and they were largely group homes, regional deten-
tion— which is a thrust at some of the crummy jails we were keeping
kids in — and community correctional programs got going.
The scene in Minnesota presentlv looks like this: We do have a few-
juveniles in security. We have not shut down our institutions like
IMassacliusetts has, l)ut ^^•hat we ha^'e done is regionalize. Again, Min-
nesota is a large State. We have three juvenile institutions and we
designated each of these to serve a different geographic area of the
State. The idea here is to pennit the staff and resources of the institu-
tion to relate to certain area=; of the State, the people there, the law
enforcement there, et cetera. This permits more of a relationship be-
tween wliat goes on in the institution and wliat goes on in the com-
munity. One of the institutions, in fact, even has cottages set aside for
certain areas of the State.
We have seen populations go down in the institutions over the last
10 years, although we are fiPiding <"urrently they are leveling off, for
what reasons we are not quite sure. We are also seein,g: whether a major
change in the role of the parole agent can be implemented. When I
started back in 1957 T had a laree caseload. I would see my clients
across the desk and spoke about their problems and hopefully there. T
would say something eloquent that tliey would leave and fjo out and
get better as a result of. I think we are finding that sort of thing not
particularlv useful. In fact, there was a survey done about a year and
a half ao-o in ^Minnesota contrasting parole sui:)orvisio7i and nonsuner-
vision. We took a number of youngsters f i-oni the State training school
at Red Wing and Sauk Center and put them out on parole. Some had
agents and some didn't. It was an excellent, Avell-controllod study. The
results showed that those who had pai'ole agents did no better than
those who did not have parole agents. In fact, if you didn't buv the
statistics too critically, those wdio didn't have parole agents did a little
729
better. This would suggest that the activity the parole agent normally
has carried on is really less than highly productive.
I would like to just describe briefly one program that I think has
been particularly useful and has really been a model on which we are
building a number of programs in Minnesota. It is a program called
PORT in Rochester, and stands for "Probationed Oii'enders Rehabil-
itation and Training." It is a community-based, community-directed,
community-supported, residential correctional facility for all ages. The
age of the youngest in the program has been 12 and the oldest has been
47. It serves a three-county area including Olmsted County, in which
Rochester is located, and two smaller counties. Its purpose is to provide
an alternative to those indi^-iduals who would otherwise go oil' to both
adult and juvenile correctional institutions.
PORT utilizes community resources to the fullest — public schools,
vocational rehabilitation, mental health centers — many, many re-
sources that exist in almost all communities in this country, as opposed
to duplicating these in the institution in which such duplication be-
comes extremely expensive.
The program was really "hatched'' by a couple of district court
judges who felt that too often, when they were sentencing somebody,
they really didn't have the option they wanted. They had probation
which didn't work — ^which hasn't worked in the past, that is, m these
cases Ave are speaking of — or they had institutionalization, which they
felt was an overkill and frequently counterproductive. So this thing-
developed from that.
It was a program that is very much supported by the community. It
is reallj', in effect, directed by the community. On the board of direc-
tors are the sheriff, the chief of police, and other elements of the crimi-
nal justice system. Of course, we are quite aware this system is any-
thing but a system. In fact, they are generally warring factions who
probably really have little in concert.
PORT is located in the community. It has served approximately 160
individuals, most of whom would have gone to a correctional institu-
tion if PORT hadn't existed. I think the really interesting thing is that
since it began in October of 1969 it has taken in 160 people, the com-
mitments to these State facilities from that three-county area. The
nice part is that we can compare what it was before, after, and what
the trends have been in the State. They have been down very sharply
for adidts, something like 78 percent. "^ Just about the lowest commit-
ment rate in the State.
Yet. the crime rate in the Rochester area is also down, whereas in St.
Paul-Minneapolis, the recent FBI reports showed that it was up.
So it may be Minnesota's crime rates haven't been that bad. They
were up in*^the Twin City area, but down in Rochester. This wovdd
suggest to these criminals in the community that otherwise be hi State
institutions are not increasing the crime rate. It is not necessarily cause
and effect, but that is the situation nonetheless.
Also, the cost per day is substantially less than the adult institutions
and remarkably less than the juvenile institutions. It rounds out a
little less than $10 a day. The adult institutions are running about $16
a day and the juvenile institutions about $35 a day.
PORT has what we call cost-effectiveness operating. It has a very
small staff. They use college students who live in and serve as
730
counselors, roommates — just people that really add to the quality of
the environment of the operation.
The beautiful thing is that these people do not have to be uprooted
from the community. They continue in school and they are taxpayers ;
if they are working they support tlieir families, so even the estimates
I quote are ver}^ conservative because they do not include dollars we
end up paying into institutions as fringe costs.
This is a program on which we are modeling a number of others.
There is one going in Brainerd, ^linn., which is up in the lake and resort
area. This area had a very high commitment to the State institutions.
There is one going in St. Paul, one in Columbia, Mo., and one expected
to get going in Minneapolis.
We are trying to take these concepts and institutionalize them, if you
will, by a subsidy bill something on the order of the California plan.
Exactly what we are doing is computing a subsidy to go out to a county,
provided they give us a plan. We then have a full spectrum, of services
operating in the county or groups of counties, if several wish to join
together.
We set a maximum amount of money they can get, and it is based
upon their crime problem as well as financial situation. Counties differ
greatly on these two factors in Minnesota.
It says that they must bring all of their correctional services under
one administration. That is an oddity because it means the sheriff'
will no longer operate the "old Enijlisli*' custom of his jail. It also
means judges may lose what traditionally has been their bailiwick.
I sav that and defer to Judce Arthur mIio is here, because the discus-
sions on this matter are rather lively discussions. But we are interested
in trying this out ; we think the business of having as high as ever
jurisdictions operating a correctional service in the same county is
nonsense. We end up consuming great amounts of money and at the
same time really delivering very poor service.
We also see to it that the county is eligible for a fairly hefty sum
of money. If they want to use State institutions they will pay for that
out of their subsidy at the going rate of $35 a day for juveniles and
$1C) for adults, except for aclults whose offenses are by statute in excess
of 5 years. The rationale behind that is that we don't want to come
into the situation where we are charging counties to send their severe
criminals to a State facility.
We find that in our institution at Stillwater, the State prison, about
85 percent of the population falls in the category we are talking about.
They have statutory maximums of less than 5 years. At the State re-
formatory about 50 percent fall in this category. We feel we can
substantially reduce our institutional population and thus free up
money to develop a spectrum of services in the context of the
community.
We hope to get the bill flying past the State senate this time. It
is in the State house currently. There is some opposition. As I said, I
would like to tr\' it. The beautiful part about it is it is not brick and
mortar; not something we have for the rest of our days as we do in
institutions.
With that, I w'ould like to conclude my testimony.
731
Mr. Lynch. Commissioner, you have, I believe, a centralized depart-
ment of corrections in the State of Minnesota. Wonld you tell us what
is 3'our jurisdiction substantively as commissioner of corrections?
Mr. SciiOEx. Mr. Lynch, we have under the department, adult and
juvenile corrections. Juvenile cori-ections includes a youth conservation
commission, which is a paroling- board, the juvenile institutions that
fall within the department, which are the three large juvenile institu-
tions, plus currently two camps. It also includes the field services,
probation and parole services, operated by the State. There are local
services, as I indicated earlier, which do not come directly under my
jurisdiction.
]Mr. Lynch. I am sorry; I am unclear. "When you sa}^ they arc oper-
ated by the State, do probation and parole fall under your jurisdiction
as commissioner ?
Mr. ScHOEN. Parole falls under my jurisdiction; that is correct.
If the court puts offenders on probation they are then under the local
service; sometimes probation ofFicere arc on contract for services from
the State. But they really are responsible to the court for probation,
except in the case of an adult. This is what we are making a thrust
at ; it is very confusing. When an adult is placed on probation by the
court in the 84 smaller counties, then it comes under my jurisdiction.
If it is in the three larger counties, it then comes under the local
jurisdiction. Also, we have the adult institutions and adult parole
under the department of corrections.
Mr. Lynch. In the interest of efficienc}', and also in the interest of
allowing you as commissioner of your department to track ju\'eniles
who are on probation, ought you have jurisdiction over juveniles on
probation ; in your judgment?
Mr. ScHOEN. Mr. Lynch, my feeling is no, we should not. However,
we can track. I think that the department of corrections should be the
funder to the local level, provide services there in accord with local
needs, within guidelines, within enforced standards. Funds should
be withdrawn if the quality of services at the local level drops.
Part of these standards includes tracking. I think the department
has the responsibility, really of providing the technical services and
computer ser\ice so we can track individually. Computers and the
state of technology being what they are today, we can do a far better
job than what we are currently doing. This is one of the major appeals
I made before the State legislature.
Mr. Lynch. On any given day, could you advise the Governor or
the public exactly how many juveniles are on probation in your State?
Do you have that information ?
Mr. Schoen. If I asked for that at 8 a.m. in the morning I could have
it by the end of the day ; yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. Could you describe what you mean by subsidy? How
does that subsidy work? ■^yllere do those funds come from?
Mr. Schoen. Currently we are spending at the State level about
$2?) million per year. What we have in mind is changing the ratio
froni 75 percent of that to institutions, and 25 percent to the com-
munity or for management. We would then take approximately $15
million from this budget, by the subsidy formula I briefly described a
miinite ago. and give this to the counties. This subsidy would match
732
up Ayith the counties existing levels of expenditure. What we are set-
ting up is a State subsidy to localities to operate programs. In other
words, bring the money to the people, rather than the people to the
money.
Mr. Lynch. But those would be State funds ?
Mr. SciiOEN. Yes, sir.
I\Ir. Lynch. How does a juvenile in difficulty vrith the law get in-
volved in the probationed offenders rehabilitation and training pro-
gram, "PORT,"* as you call it? _
Mr. ScHOEN. Mr. Lynch, it is optional on his part. Here is the way
it generally works. He gets into difficulty and very quickly is on
probation, although we have had some exceptions to that. The judge
or his staff' are looking for an alternative. Of course, this is a small
area and therefore the people are very much aware of the program;
so one of the options the judge may offer the youngster is the PORT
program. Generally, the judge is at the point of saying you have ex-
hausted your resources and traditional probation, your behavior has
developed to a point at which we feel it is in your interest and the
interest of the community to send you to an institution.
The PORT program would then be available and tlie choice open
to the youngster. The same option is open to adults. A man goes up
there and spends a couple of weeks looking it over — with the staff look-
ing him over, too. If he chooses it, the judge sets it as a condition of his
probation. He resides at tlie facility. The general lengtli of stay aver-
ages 6 or 7 months — sometimes it is much less or much longer. Our
experience is when it goes beyond a year it is not as effective.
As a short answer to your question : PORT is optional to the young-
ster and his family.
Mr. Lynch. Commissioner, you indicated it cost $35 a day, which,
if my arithmetic is correct, is approximately $12,500 a year to keep
a juvenile incarcerated. Yesterday we heard the testimony indicated —
that in some States, Rhode Island, for example — the cost may run as
high as $22,000 : in New York, it was between $18,000 and $21,000 per
annum; in Illinois, $18,000; Massachusetts, between $10,000 and
S15,000. How much does it cost to have the juvenile in a program like
PORT?
i^Ir. ScHOEN. We are using annual figures, and I think you must bear
in mind that if the length of stay were less than a year of course, it
would be that fraction of the total of $12,500. Although the length of
stay in PORT is approximately the same as it is in the juvenile insti-
tution, around 9 months, PORT runs less than $3,600 per year.
So it would be substantially less.
Mr. Lynch. Approximately 25 percent of the cost of incarceration?
Mr. ScHOEN. That is correct.
Mr. Lynch. Commissioner, how many juveniles do you have in your
State who need to be incarcerated?
Mr. ScHOEN. That is always a very difficult question. And I think
you really have to look at where programs are operated to give you
some idea of how many.
If you go to an institution, particularly an adult institution, and
ask what percent can make it in the street, ithe staff will say they don't
know. This is because there is so much behavior that goes on in insti-
tutions that is merely a byproduct of living in the institution. As I
733
mentioned, some community programs have been developed that have
reduced the load in institutions substantially.
The hgure, I Avould guess, would be 10 percent. But again, I thmk
that figure is so dependent on whether we have something more crea-
tive available to deal with the youngsters. Being dependent simply
upon institutions alone, as a method of dealing with a residual young-
ster, is an old custom we have had. I think it is important that we
address ourselves to some options. Then I would daresay it may go
down to 5 percent or 1 percent if we really get some good programs.
Mr. Lynch. For purposes of the record, at what age does the juve-
nile reach his maturity vis-a-vis the criminal justice system in Min-
nesota ?
Mr. ScHOEN. Through the age of 17.
:Sh\ Lynch. Through 17. The 18th birthday he is an adult?
Mr. ScHOEN. He is an adult. AVe have a youthful offender law in
Minnesota, but in effect he is an adult at 18.
Mr. Lynch. It goes up to what age ?
Mr. ScHOEN. Age 21.
Mr. Lynch. How many juveniles do you have currently institu-
tionalized in Minnesota ?
Mr. Schoen. We have two county institutions and we have three
State institutions, plus an operating camp. I would say about 500 ju-
veniles institutionalized. ma3'be 550, including the county institutions
in I\Iinnesota at the present time.
Mr. Lynch. What kind of a juvenile gets committed to one of those
institutions? What is the typical kind of offender that has been
committed ?
Mr. ScHOEN. For boys it is mostly for property offenses, car theft,
burglary : although car thefts are going down principally because of
the locking devices.
For the girls more than 50 percent we call status offenders. Their
beha\dor is called delinquent simply because they are juveniles, that is.
Mr. Lynch. Whereas it could not if they were adults ?
i^Ir. ScHOEN. If they were beyond the age of 18 it could not.
Now, there is a bill before the legislature at the present time in ]\Iin-
nesota wiping out status offenses as a means of commitment to the
State. Judges could still adjudicate them delinquent and deal with
them at the local level. Others say that many youths could have been
committed for criminal offenses but were merely charged with status
ofl'enses. I am not really sure of the accuracy of that.
jMr. Lynch. VjHiat is a juvenile camp? Would you describe a camp
for us ?
Mr. Schoen. These got going in the late fifties. The notion was
modeled somewhat after the CCC idea back in the thirties. They are
generally smaller facilities, 40, 50, 60 residents. Initially they were
forestry type located in the areas of the State where we had heavy
thnberland. The juveniles would clean up brush and this kind of
thins. The notion was this was a good work experience and created
a more intimate kind of relationship between staff and the boys. They
evolved into vocational training facilities and all of them added
schools.
The problem has been that as we ha^e added such communitj' facili-
ties, the type of individuals who v.-ould be in these camps, with no
05-158— 73— pt. 2 7
734
security to speak of, we have had a real problem keeping the popula-
tions up. I think this has been seen around the country.
As a result, the one residual camp we have now has had a population
of only 10 and 35. ^Vlien it gets down to 10, the legislature gets very
upset because the cost is really quite high.
Mr. Lynch. Wliat kind of an offender goes to camp, as opposed to
a regular kind of institution ?
Mr. ScHOEN. Again, my experience does not indicate that the offense
and type of behavior you can expect to see in an institution are highly
related. The boy who goes there would be one who would not be a
great behavior problem ; who would probably not be a great security
risk, and veiy likely would not commit some act that would be danger-
ous to the community, embarrassing to the department, that sort of
thing.
Mr. Lynch. How long does one get sentenced, if that is the appro-
priate word, to that kind of institution or a camp ?
Mr. ScHOEN. The program in the one remaining camp we have,
which is in the northern part of the State, around Hibbing, has a def-
inite lejigth of stay. I thinlv currently it is 3 months. So the youngster
knows when he goes there tliat it is going to be that long a period. The
current program offered there is a type of outward-bound program.
It is an outdoors endurance experience, in addition to a school pro-
gram. Forestation has really become a minor pait of the program.
Mr. Lynch. As a correctional administrator, what is your view of
programs like outward bound ? Do they have a value ?
Mr. ScHOEN. I think they do, yes sir; pro\nded this isn't the whole
program. What it does is offer them an opportunity to do the things
that many kids have done b}^ virtue of being a part of tlie mainstream.
They begin to see themselves as competent^ individuals, particularly
with pliysical skills. We have seen some good results of this program
and I think it offers some real value. Massachusetts is doing it and a
number of the Eastern States are using these programs. I think this
is one we want to continue.
Mr. Lynch. You have been involved with adult and juvenile correc-
tions since 1957. I wonder if you could describe for us what your long-
range plans are, especially regarding the juvenile correctional system
in jNIinnesota ?
Mr. ScHOEN. Mr. ChaiiTnan, Mr. Lynch, I hope we will see the day,
particularly with respect to juveniles, although adults too, when we
are spending our correctional dollars largely in the community to
provide a full spectrum of services, and the opportunity for the indi-
vidual to link up with services prior to being thrust deep into the cor-
rectional continuum.
For a moment, may I say that we tend to get in the correctional pro-
grams, the individuals who do not have access to power and resources.
For the youngster who is reared in a home wliere this access is avail-
able, other di-\^ersions are developed by the parents — jisychiatry, good
lawyers, private schools, et cetera. And they generally work. So we
don't see many of those people in the correctional system. This is not
to suggest those kinds of kids don't commit delinquent offenses.
Mr. Lynch. If I could interrupt, are those services generally pub-
licly available to young people if the parents do not have the financial
735
wherewithal, are those kinds of things i^ublicly avaiUible now in the
State of Minnesota?
Mr. ScHOEx. Mr. LjTich, they are not readily available. To make
them available requires money and persuasion. They are becoming
increasingly available, but not"^ nearly to the extent necessary. One of
the things the PORT program does do is give options to the individual.
Mr. Lynch. What kind of options? Could you explain that?
Mr. ScnoEN. It gives options. For example, the person needs a spe-
cial educational program. There are two institutions that tend to break
down most significantly with respect to the juvenile: The family
institution and the school institution.
"We need to liuild on these two, using the correctional dollar, with
family counseling, psychiatry, mental health services, and special
educational experiences. This is what we would like to see happen and
this is where we would like to sec our money directed.
The person who has money and access to power can provide these
thing-s ; for example, private schools are not available to the poor. What
happens is that the judge ends up just as desirous of providing the poor
kid from the other side of the tracks with the same expeiience as the
youngster who grows up in an affluent area. Thus he ends up commit-
ting the person to a State institution.
Mr. Lynch. To what extent would the provision of those kinds of
services cost more than the present treatment accorded under correc-
tional institutions? Would it be more expensive in your judgment?
Mr. ScHOEX. In my judgment, it would not be. We project that we
could provide all of the services that they need with our current level
of spending. The only increases we would need would be due to infla-
tion or population increases.
In our opinion, if we can pull together the fragmentation of the
correctional services, or efficiencies, we can reverse the 75-25 ratio,
directing our money toward the community. We could provide school
programs that respond to alienated, dropping-out youngsters. There
are some very excellent models for this. We could provide such pro-
grams without spending more money. Yet the productivity, the cost
effectiveness would be exceedingly higher than it currently is.
Mr. Lynch. Turn that budget around from 75 percent to institu-
tions by doing what, by closing some local institutions and going to a
regional correctional system?
Mr. SciTOEN. Mr. Lynch, largely by closing a number of the institu-
tions at the State level. For example, we have a juvenile institution
in the metropolitan area, senang Hennepin and Ramsey Counties —
]Minneapolis is in Hennepin County — St. Paul, in Ramsey County.
They both operate juvenile institutions. Both of their institutions are
half full. We operate a State institution serving approximately the
same area, and ours is half full. Close them both up and immediately
we would realize a saving of about $2.25 million.
Mr. Lynch. Your testimony was the approximate operating budget
in your department is about $23 million. How much money have you
received within the past year from LEAA?
Mr. ScHOEN. Approximately $2 million. I have to put a heavy
emphasis on the approximate there. The department gets some money
directly and some from the State through programs we eitlier sub-
sidize or we are interested in supporting.
736
Mr. Lynch. AVliat do you use the LEAA money for, sir ?
Mr. ScHOEN. Primarily the development of new programs that we
otherwise could not operate or develop, because of the need to continue
what we are operating. That is a problem we have now. Just changing
the reversal of the 75-25 ratio is very difficult. We have to operate
parallel services. LEAA allows the beginning of new programs even
though they are operating existing programs.
Once a program gets financed, and we get people into it, we can
begin to shift funds. The POUT program and other models developed
from an LEAA start. Once we get going we can begin to shift funds
in those directions for good programs.
Furthermore, we have a chance to examine the programs and judge
whether or not they are effective.
Mr. Lynch. Do you have a planning development and research staff
in your department ?
Mr. ScHOEN. Yes. We are making a major reorganization in the
department and one of the major shifts is going in that direction.
Mr. Lynch. What is the state of the unit now ?
]Mr. ScHOEN. It exists, it does a fairly good job. But I would say it
does only about 25 percent of the job it could do, with the talents we
have, the knowledge we have, the technical capabilities we have in the
State.
For example, we have a very sophisticated computer located in the
State capitol. We do not have a terminal. I hope to have a terminal
by the first of July, so we can really begin to determine such things.
There is a bill in the legislature saying it should be mandatory for
a man to go to prison for 3 years if he uses a gun. We have somewhere
in the community the knowledge of how many offenders used guns
and their track record.
Mr. Lynch. Under the 1970 amendments to the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act, there were the requirements for partial
funding that the corrections component of the State system produce,
in a sense, its own mini 5-year plan for correctional forecasts. Did
your department do that in the State of Minnesota ?
Mr. ScHOEN. We are doing it. It is currently being done and is
coming to fruition at the present time. We did it through a private
corporation. Bush Foundation grant, being done through the jNIinne-
sota Correctional Services. It is going to be an impressive piece of
research.
Mr. Lynch. Can you tell us wh8.t forecasted plans are within that
5-year plan for juvenile corrections ?
Mr. ScHOEN. Largely we plan to decentralize the juvenile institu-
tions, as we have already done ; to reduce their size and to move the
resources to the community, setting up programs there.
Eventually, I'd say a 10-year plan is to go into what they call human
resources programs in the community where they don't have depart-
ments of bad people, but human resources that respond to individual
needs.
Mr. Lynch. Commissioner Schoen, yesterday witnesses describing
the Massachusetts system indicated to tliis committee that it was their
feeling that frequently private organizations could perform more ef-
fective and more accountable correctional services in the juvenile field;
their feeling was that you do not get involved in bureaucratic tangles
737
and, in fact, vou can serve a contractual relationship with an inde-
pendent firm much more easily than you can change a bureaucratic
system. Do you in Minnesota contract out private rehabilitation pro-
grams for juveniles? If you do, how does it work? And if you don't
woukl you like to have that authority ?
Mr. ScHOEN. Mr. Lynch, yes, we do contract out. I support their find-
ings in Massachusetts. This is a good way to go. And it docs one more
thing, it also begins to develop a constituency, where someone has to
support the correctional effort. Other programs tend not to have this
constituency.
We have contracted out primarily with LEAA funds, which is a
great aid in this. One of the pro])]ems witli State funds in Minnesota
is that we budget on a line item basis and there is no incentive to save
money. In fact, it is the other way around. The incentive is to spend
all, and to come back and say, "Look at all of the money we spent, we
need more."
I think at this time we are going to make a change in that so residual
moneys can be utilized to operate programs and even allow for
contracting.
I would say that percentagewise very little money is spent in con-
tracts. We have a number of contracts operating for direct service and
training grants. We are going to be moving in this direction and as we
move toward subsidy programs, I would encourage communities to do
the same thing.
The PORT is a contract program. It is a nonprofit organization
operating in the community on a contract, really to the State and
county because the State and county fund the program.
]Mr. Lynch. To what extent do you utilize the services of the juvenile
justice vohmteers, individual citizens who work with or under the aus-
pices of your department ?
Mr. ScHOEN. It varies quite a bit.
A gentleman by tlie name of John Conrad, who used to be with
LEAA, a researcher from California originally told me Minnesota has
a very hi.eh percentage as you compare State to State.
I was not aware of this, that our comparison with other States was
on the upper end by far.
Hennepin County has an elaborate program witli volunteers.
Throughout the State, we are seeing the development of a great deal
of volunteer ii\put into the system. And of course, what it does, again,
is to extend our services in many resnects. The PORT program is an
example of one in which volunteers offer the major input into the pro-
gram. And again, it provides a great deal to corrections to have vol-
unteers intimately involved. I am not talking about them bringing
rookies or flowers or the nice things like that. I am talking about really
delivering correctional-type services.
^Ir. Lyxch. I take it you tend to favor the use of volunteers ?
Mr. ScHOEN. Very much.
Mr. Lynch. Do you have a training program or guidelines for the
selection and training of volunteers within your department?
Mr. ScHOEN. Within the department we do. It is a unit that got start-
ed under an LEAA grant. As of July 1, we will be picking up on our
State budget.
738
The Hennepin County court services was one of the first depart-
ments to get involved in this area. They have a very elaborate training
program.
Mr. Lynch. What kind of juvenile recidivism rates have you ex-
perienced within the past several years, Commissioner Schoen?
Mr. ScpiOEN. They have declined since 1967 because we have made
substantial improvements in our juvenile institutions. The Red Wing
facility, especially, experienced a decline from about a 50-percent re-
turn rate to about 18 percent in 1972.
The facility at Sauk Centre, the one the committee chairman visited
a couple of years ago, has been dealing with younger boys and girls
of all ages. The girls are reporting approximately the same rate of
failure as success.
Interestingly, with the younger boys, we do much more poorly. That
is exactly what we found in the PORT program, too. The younger boy,
13 to 15,'is the one who is much harder to get a grip on.
Mr. Lynch. Why is that ?
Mr. ScHOEN. I tiiink because they have a higher level of impulsivity
and also much more dependence upon people than we are able to pro-
vide in our institutional-type programs.
I think parenting plays an important role in that. We are going to
be trying some special programs for that person now. We are think-
ing initially of creating a linkup with school and group therapy pro-
grams. Then the youngster who does not have a home would have a
small group living situation. Then, perhaps, we could make a thrust
at this problem.
The success of the PORT program, as we get into the older ages,
goes up. If you look at the institution we put the older person in, this
suggests we have the very worst there. But statistics indicate our
chances of being successful at the age of 18, are much greater than
they are as we get down to the younger ages. And the same is borne
but in juvenile institutions.
Mr. Lynch. What kind of public response have you received to the
PORT program ?
Mr. Schoen. It has been remarkably excellent. The question is, how
long will it last? This has been the case since 1969. At the annual
meeting they had at Rochester at the nicest hotel in toAvn, where the
right people go, they had an attendance of 300 people this past fall.
It is a program that is very much a part of the communit3^ It has a
board of directors that is an impressive group, paralleled only by the
Mayo Clinic itself.
INIr. Lynch. I have no further questions.
Chairman PErPER. Mr. McDonald, do you have any questions?
Mr. McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chaii-man.
Mr. Schoen, can you explain to us in more detail precisely what the
PORT program entails and precisely what it does ?
]Mr. Schoen. First of all, it is a nonprofit corporation set up in 1969.
It is an alternative to incarceration for the most part, and it is resi-
dential.
It uses two treatment teclmologies. One is group therapy, the type
of thing used at the State training school in Red Wing. That was the
iii-st method used. Then they added a behavior modification scheme, a
point system, where freedoms are earned by virtue of measurable be-
739
liavior. Tliis starts off with fairly ti<2:ht controls on the individuals.
It essentially says to a pereon, "We don't ti-ust you, because you haven't
ofiven us reason to," rather than saying, "Everything is fine now. and
all of vour sins are past and forgotten, we are going to begin a fresh
slate."'
The group makes decisions on increased freedoms individuals living
in a group will receive. Residents, and volunteere — college students — •
live in the same rooms together.
The individual ma}' inmiediately participate in school or Avork. The
experience has been that you can structure that well enough to insure
the necessaiT control, bearing in mind that the primary goal in cor-
rections is public safety and public protection. It must be cognizant
of tliat. Otherwise the question ]\Ir. Lynch asked earlier, "Plow is the
public support r' — it is not going to last veiy long if the commimity
is a hotbed of any kind.
As the individual shows the group that he can operate in. several
areas such as schools and finances, they give him increased freedoms.
Eventually they receive the same freedoms in the program that indi-
viduals of that age would normally receive. A 15-year-old woidd have
fcAver freedoms than a 25-ycar-old for example.
Chainiian PEPrEii. Where do they go to school? Do you have special
scl^ools or do they go to the public schools ?
Mr. ScHOEX. They go to the public schools. And if they are in the
community from wlience they came, wliich most of them are, they go
to their own school. That eliminates the transition from the facility
back into the school.
Mr. ]McDoxALD. You mentioned before there is a mix at PORT
adults, from the ages of 13 to 47 or 12 through 47. Does this work out?
Is it good to associate young ju^'eniles with older adult offenders?
Mr. ScHOEX. Your question, Mr. ]McDonald relates to problems ex-
pe T-ienced in adult institutions that bring in very young persons. Such
facilities have experienced more problems than we do in Minnesota.
The difference is here, PORT is a piece of the conmiunity.
If the value system, or the culture, or what is thought to be right
and what is thought to be wrong, on the part of the individual who
lives in the program, is normal and healthy, we have found that the
younger residents even fare better. And the older guy does pretty well,
too, because his behavior looks more ridiculous in the eyes of the
youngster than it would with a bunch of guys living together like in
an Aniiy camp.
We found that with the young juvenile living in an institution, we
tend to have sort of a perpetual boy scout jamboree, if you will. We
then end up spending more time trying to control the youngster
than we do getting down to the business of developing his strengths.
There have been no cases, where there has been what is clearly, ex-
plicitly, delinquent behavior as a result of that association. Generally,
wl.at happens, in fact, is that the older felloAvs and the younger kids
associate with their own age group. Probably the biggest problem is
that you do tend to see associations continue once the residents leave
the program in the community. Sometimes these are not real favor-
able associations. Sometinies they are. But as far as the older guy
having a negative influence, or vice versa, on the younger one, that
has not been the experience.
740
IMr. MrDoxALD. What is the competence of the college-age students
to counsel the older offender? Are they especially trained? How does
the older offender take being counseled by someone perhaps half his
age ?
Mr. ScHOEK. The counseling is not a professional type of counseling.
They attempt to hel]) them with their problems in the sense of a deep
insight. We picked the college age students, which are pretty young
guys. They come from a junior college and are only 18 and 19, this
presents some problems.
W> have to pick tliose who are functioning in at that own age.
We did try some who were having some dropout problems them-
selves— questioning the establishment and all that sort of thing. We
found, tliat those cases, that we reallv ended up with more problems
than we wanted. But I think generally that we choose the students
well.
Good students and older guys will do better. The relationship is
one of companionship. If the college student is a functioning in-
dividual, it is a good relationship. Furthermore, this kind of individual
has his feet on the ground and his value system pretty well set. He
is not going to be influenced negatively bv the offender, but the offender
is going to see, living intimately with him, somebody who can really
cut the mustard and be a model for him.
The students also perform supervision of the building. Offenders
perform the same function, if they dem.onstrate that they can be
trusted. They also clean up the building together. There is no hierarchy
in that respect.
Mr, JNicDoNALD. No further questions, Mr. Chairman,
Oiairman Pepper. Mr. Schoen, has it been your observation that
crimes are committed by relatively few people?
Mr. ScHOEN. I guess it depends upon how we want to define "crime."
I guess we all commit crime to some degree.
Chairman Pepper. I am thinking primarily about what we call
serious and violent crime.
Mr, ScHOEN, One of the problems, of course, is that we know our
statistics on crime is very poor. Most of it goes unreported and violent
crime, the type where bodily harm is done, is confined to a relatively
small number of people in a small area, generally within the towns and
cities.
I would say that the individuals that are, in fact, dangerous people
to our communities are confined to a relatively small number. That is
correct.
Chairman Pepper. That gives us a point, of focus for the problem.
If we could do something about those people we would materially
reduce the volume of serious or violent crimes, wouldn't we, Mr.
Schoen ?
Mr. Schoen-. That is correct.
Chairman Pepper, '\^^iat importance do you attach to the youth
population, the teenagers, for example, in relation to the problem of
crime ?
Mr. Schoen, As I jokingly say, if we could eliminate everybody
between the ages of — I am emphasizing, jokingly — 13 and 25, we
largely eliminate crime.
741
Certainly the youngster, the teenager, is the one who commits crimes
most frequently. I can't say whether these are the most violent crimes,
I think seldom, almost never, you see a person in our adult prison
who we have not seen or been aware of as a delinquent youngster.
Chairman Pepper. You mean who has not been delinquent in his
youth ?
JMr. ScHOEx. That is correct, ]\Ir. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. In other words, as you say, the generation that is
in the penal institutions, the so-called correctional institutions of the
country, at some time before were a part of the juvenile system ^
]VIr. ScHOEX. Generally speaking that is correct.
Chairman Pepper. That suggests the importance of programs
attempting to do something about the problem of juvenile crime;
doesn't that ?
Mr. SciiOEN. That certainly does.
Chairman Pepper. Therefoie, the necessity for all possible emphasis
of that part of our population.
Now, will you just take the case of a boy, let's say a boy of 16, 17
years old who is brought into the juvenile court, someone from your
region in Minnesota, for the commission of a serious crime.
What happens to that boy? In the first place, is he sentenced by
the court to a particular place, or is he put into the custody of your
correctional system ?
Mr. Schoex. Mr. Chairman, the judge has a number of options. Let's
assume that it is a IG-year-old who has been in difficulty for some time.
By the time he is 16 we have seen him for a while. And let's say he has
been on probation to the court. At this point the judge just feels that
he has exhausted the resources. We are, of course, as I said, seeing
more options. But let's assume there are no other options, that he
would commit liim to the j'outh conservation commission, which is
really a parole board for youngsters, and place him in one of the
department of corrections institutions. He would then spend some
months there.
Chainnan Pepper. A^V^io would determine where he would go, and
what sort of discipline he would be subjected to ?
]\Ir. ScHOEX. If one of the local juvenile courts commits him to
the State, the yo^^th conservation commission would determine to
whicli facility and which program he would participate in.
Chairman Pepper. That woi;ld be after an inten'iew with someone ?
Mr. ScHOEX. He would go to our reception cottage at one of the
institutions. There they would develop material for the commission.
Then the commission comes there to hear the case, make a decision,
and establish some information. This is a panel of two or three.
Chairman Pepper. Let us just say this 16- or 17-year-old committed
rape and murder. ^\Tiat would happen to him then?
Mr. ScHOEX. It depends. It again is up to the judge. He has two
options on a very serious crime. He can commit him to the youth
conservation system, as I indicated. He would then be sent to one of
our open juvenile institutions. The judge would have to feel that he
is not likely to commit the crime again, if he were to run away.
If the judge felt this individual was indeed very dangerous and
felt it was questionable or irrelevant to try to rehabilitate him, he can
742
then bind liim over to wliat "we call Minnesota District Court, the
adult felon}^ court. He could then be tried as an adult and perhaps
go to one of our maximum security facilities. Very likely he would
go to the reformatory at St. Cloud.
Chairman Pepper. Did you say under the law of Minnesota that
people convicted of a serious crime must serve at least a 3-year mini-
mum sentence in the State institution ?
Mr. SciiOEN. Mr. Chairman, what I said is that there is a bill in
the current session of the legislature which would require mandatory
sentencing of 3 j^ears for anyone who committed a number of serious
crimes with a gun in their possession.
Chairman Pepper. That would mean they would have to serve
that time. They couldn't be paroled ?
Mr. SciioEN. That is correct. Neither the judge nor parole board
could alter that.
Chairman Pepper. It is a little beside a point of discussion, but
would you care to express any opinion as to how desirable a long
sentence is. even for a serious violent crime ?
Does society gain by sending a man to prison for 40 or 30 years,
or 20 years? I am asking whether or not it is possible that he may
be rehabilitated under those circumstances.
Mr. ScHOEN. I suppose if you are saying 40 years, we could be sure
he is not going to recidivate for a long time. However, nobody stays
for that long a period. The average stay at Minnesota is 22 to 23
months, at the present time.
We do know that prisons are very counterproductive. There are
some very good statistics, in fact there is an excellent study on this
about juveniles just produced by a man named Lamar Empay of
California.
Chairman Pepper. What is the subject of the book ?
Mr. Sciioen. The book is entitled "The Provo Experiment." It is a
long-term study done over a period of years. It compares, with the
use of control groups, the youngsters who went to juvenvile institutions
with those who didn't go. He used controlled groups where the judge
allowed him to move in after making his decision to put some in the
community and some in the institution.
The ones that went to the institution clearly, some years later,
continued to commit crimes in numbers and serious crimes. This gets
us back to the point of your question ; That is, everybody suggests that
institutions are indeed very counterproductive.
Mr. Steiger. How about the controlled group ?
Mr. ScHOEN". One group went to the insitution and the other was
expected to go but didn't go. He then had the judge also put two
groups on probation, one on regular probation and the other in an in-
tensive group.
There were three groups in the community and one in the insti-
tution. The differences between the three community groups were
there, as would be expected, but these were not too great. The clearest
differences were shown by the group that went to the institution. The
moral of the story is that no matter what you do in the community, the
important thing is keep youngsters out of institutions.
Chairman Pepper. You are trying to find a way to inspire these
young people to get into a better course of life, trying to give them a
743
feeling that tliey would be happier. We had here five young people
3'esterday, and they all testified that they were enjoying life inorc, they
were happy in this now program in which they were participating.
One boy had been on drugs, and was not on drugs noAV. He said
he hoped to be in the Marine Corps soon. I guess you try to bring out
the best.
I remember that remarkable institution of yours at Red Wing, the
peer therapy principle it operates on, where they arouse in the boy
the desire to help his fellow inmates. I heard one boy there tell a very
interesting tale. Had been out for a while and then called back and
asked if he could be permitted to come back for a week or two. He
said he was getting, as he put it, scared of himself. He came back with
this group, about a 10-person group, in that cottage. He said he wanted
to be with his fellow associates again. And after he stayed there a
week or two, he said, "xill right, I am ready to go now, I think I am
all right."
That brought out the desire within those boys to help one another.
You appeal to that side of their nature, too, I suppose.
Mr. ScHOEN. Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of points you cov-
ered there. One is, when youngstere feel they have some control over
their destiny and command over what is going to l^appen to thorn,
this is extremely helpful where they have options. It is also important
that they see the correctional program as being an aid to tliem rather
than merely a pimisliing force.
The fact that the boy chose the institution would indicate that
there is something in it for him.
I was down to Eed Wing Fiiday of last week, and I can report
to you that I had the same feeling. The kids look like there is some-
thing going on for them that is still there. I was very impressed with
what I saw there.
Chairman Peppek. Mr. Mann ?
Mr. IMann. J^o questions.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Steiger ?
]\Ir. Stetger. No questions.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Rangel ?
Mr. Rangel. No questions.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Keating?
Mr. Kr,\ting. No questions.
Chairman Pepper. Yesterday, Dr. Miller, in testifying about the
ISIassachusetts plan said there was difficulty, there was expense in-
volved in transforming the system, and dealing with young people
from the old institutional system to the new system that they were
employing.
He thought it might be desirable for Federal funds to ])0 made
available to the States to make this transformation. He recit^^d the
fact it was a $2 million grant from LEAA funds that made possible
the alteration of this program.
Do you think it would be necessary for other States and your State
to address this program, for other States to inaugurate this progi-am
which you seem to suggest is unmistakably desirable. "Would it be
desirable, or would it be necessary, for Federal funds to be made
available to the States !
744
Mr. ScHOEisr. Mr. Chairman, I am asking the State legislature for
$1.8 million to begin this transition. Minnesota has been willing to
spend some money. I would say, however, that the direction we are
going toward is largely a result of having Federal money. I guess
the answer to your question is "Yes."
Some States have been very stingy in spending money for correc-
tions. I think that where they have good correctional administrators
with good desire, they often just don't have the funds. If you are
locked in an old system, you simply can't get out of it unless you have
some seed money, investment money, front-end load money, if you
will, to make that change.
Chairman Peppek. The last question is. what other States have
adopted modernistic programssuch as ]Massn.chusetts ?
Mr. ScHOEN. Mr. Chairman. I think, Florida; some interesting
things going on in Michigan, in Washington, certainly California has
done a number of things out tliere, primarily because of the crunch
of their population. They had to do something. Some very interesting
thinos have come out of California.
We are seeing a proliferation around the country of some ijnterest-
ing programs. We are also seeing some of the old 1700 stuff still carry-
ing on as though that were really productive.
Chairman Pepper. Do you think, on a different scale, that we can
apply the principles you employ in dealing with juveniles to the adult
population in our institutions?
Mr. ScHOEN. I am convinced that we can do it with even <jreater
ease. I think the juveniles are the ones who are much more difficult to
rehabilitate. If I were betting money, or I had to say where my best
investment was, I would always do it with adults because we ha^-e so
many more things going for us with them than we have with the
juvenile. The juvenile is dependent, impulsive, and much more difficult
to get a grip on than the adult.
Cliairm.an Peppek. Do you think there is real hope if we employ the
proper programs for the rehabilitation of many people in the adult
penal institutions today ?
Mr. ScHOEN. That is correct.
Chairman Pepper. ISIr. Nolde has some questions.
Mr. Nolde. Mr. Schoen, regarding the LEAA funding to which you
referred earlier, would it be wise to condition such funding upon a
requirement that the State eliminate the old system if the money is
going to be devoted to a new system, or a new approach such as the one
you mentioned here?
Mr. SciiOEN. That is an interesting idea. I am responding, however,
"without a great deal of thought. One of the problems of LEAA money
is that it started buying an awful lot of hardware. At the time col-
lege students were being obstreperous and I recall pith helmets and
things being bought and sitting on shelves some place in buildings, and
that sort of thing.
Yes, I think if we could say it is predicated on developing an expan-
sion of services, with a minimum of brick and mortar, and provided
that points of entry into the system could occur earlier. Also, it should
provide that the elements of the criminal justice system, the police,
courts, corrections, and prosecutors and defense, must sit down together
and begin to develop a program for their community, rather than just
745
bad-moiithing one another, which I think is a very serious problem at
the present time.
Mr. NoLDE. Would it be feasible to impose such condition, to elimi-
nate a parallel situation that seems to be developing here ?
]Mr. ScHOEN. Politically, I guess you maybe know that one better
than I do. I think it is very feasible. I certainly would, yes.
]Mr. NoLDE. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
Mr. Schoen, for 5^our fine testimony, and also for the excellent work
you are doing. The State of Minnesota is fortunate to have such an
outstanding Commissioner of Corrections.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much, Mr. Schoen. We appre-
ciate your being here. You helped us greatly.
We will take a 5-minute recess for the accommodation of the reporter
and will resinne with the next witness.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
Judge Arthur, will you come up, please.
OTir next witness is Judge Lindsay Arthur of the Minnesota Family
Court. He is also president of the National Council of Juvenile Court
Judges.
Judge Arthur will testify and comment on the juvenile corrections
problem from his vantage point as a judge and officer of the National
Council of Juvenile Court Judges.
Judge Arthur, you have been very helpful to our staff in preparing
these hearings and we wish to thank you for that, as well as for your
kindness in coming before us today.
Mr. Lynch, will you please begin.
Mr. Lyxcii. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
;Mr. Chairman, Judge Arthur, as you know, is the president of the
National Council of Juvenile Court Judges. Judge Arthur holds an
A.B. degree from Princeton University and J.D. from the University
of Minnesota. He is also a director of "the Urban Coalition, the Boys^
Club, Children's Health Club, and a number of other civic organiza-
tions. He practiced law in Minneapolis and became a judge of the Min-
nesota Municipal Court in 1954, and became a judge of the Juvenile
Division District Court for the State of Minnesota in 1961.
Judge Arthur, if you have a prepared statement for the committee,
would you please deliver it at this time.
STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSAY G. AETHUR, JUDGE, DISTRICT
COURT, JUVENILE DIVISION, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., AND PRES-
IDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES
Judge Arthur. Mr. Chairman, I heretofore submitted a statement
in writing and, if I may, I would like to leave that with you and make
an ad lib summary, if that would be permissible.
Chairman Pepper. Without objection, your statement will appear in
full in the record.
[Jud.iro Arthur's prepared statement appears immediately followiug
his tos:timony.]
Judge Arthur. Tluink yon. Mr. Chairman.
As was indicatod, T come here kind of wearing two hats. T^t me talk
about them separately. Each of them is concerned with delinquency,
in fart, each of them has almost exclusively juvenile delinquency as
746
its province, but each of them necessarily approaches it from a some-
what different point of view.
We have the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges. It is an
organization about 35 years old. We maintain, and I think we can
demonstrate, that it is the strongest organization of judges in the
United States. Our membership represents some 1,500 judges, about
half of the juvenile court judges in the United States, but these judges
themselves come from jurisdictions comprising some 75 percent of the
population of the United States. These are our active members. Fif teeri
years ago we had a budget of about $1,000 and now our budget is
passing three-quarters of a million dollars, and we expect it to cross a
million dollars next year.
Chairman PepperI^ Where do those funds come from. Judge ?
Jud^e Arthur. As a guess, about GO to 70 percent are private funds,
basically, from the Fleischmann Foundation in Nevada, some from
various other foundations, the rest is basically LEAA funds.
We have recently developed a staff of highly trained experts. I
would hold them second to none in these skills for which we have
secured them.
This National Council approaches the problem of juvenile delin-
quency from a different point of view than the individual court. We
say tlie most important factor in reducing delinquency is to train the
people dealing with the kids in tlie establishment. Basically to train
the judges of the juvenile courts so they can understand what kids
are alx)ut, acquainting them with the behavioral sciences, to training
them a': to juvenile law both before and after the Ganlt case. We also
train them on available dispositions and treatment programs, what is
being used effectively around the country, so the judges themselves
can do a better job. There are very few places in the United States
where you can go to school to ])e even a trial judge, much less to
learn the very high specialty of the juvenile court. We have opened
a- college in Nevada with Fleischmann funds where we have already
trained over 2,000 judges.
But I think we are just tapping the surface. I think we need to go
into it much more voluminously than we have. Our ultimate goal is
to make it possible that no judge would touch a juvenile case until he
had a minimum of 2 weeks' highly intensive training and at least 3 or
4 days a year of refresher training. Juvenile court is a demanding
specialty. It should require intensive training to get into it.
Similarly, our right arms, our probation officers, we think they
should be trained. Many of them now have M.S.W. degrees, but we
think they need to be trained in some of the practical aspects of the
applications of the juvenile court approach. Our council is beginning
to use our funds to train these key people to try to bring them into
even a higher degree of skill than the}^ now have.
But, as I say, we are only tapping the surface with our present
budget; we are not anywhere near where we should be. But vre will
provide this training because it must be provided.
Tlie second thrust of our organization is services to our members.
We have a law digest we think is very good. It analyzes the appellate
eases dealing with juveniles. We have a quarterly journal, usually
used for articles of interest, as a forum, if you will, for discussion of
ideas. Every now and then we take an issue and use it for a single
747
purpose. You have an example of botli these publications, as they are
inr^luded in the folders provided to the committee.
We would like to develop statistics as to juveniles. We have almost
none now and we think they are almost not in existence. HEW has
some very rudimentary figures, the Fl^I has arrest figures, sometimes
rather misleading as to actual juvenile delinquency.
We would like to develop statistics on our own basis. The figures
slioidd be based, not on the reason for the arrest of the child, but on
what he admits or is found guilty of. The police do make mistakes and
often their cases don't come to our courts, and often the child is not
guilty of anything or is guilty of a lesser included charge in some form
or another.
We would like to assemble a manual of all of the things that have
been tried around the country. We are trying to assemble this. But
we are able to do it now by only one judge in Michigan, Eugene Moore,
trying to put it together on his own, with his own staff. Obviously, an
impossible burden for any degree of completeness.
We are looking for funds to do that. I think we will find them. It
is a question of getting the job done and making available to each of
lis the successes of the others. And, I would quickly add, also making
available to each of us the things that did not work, so the others
don't have to follow and make the same mistake.
We would like to assemble data, caseloads, salaries, the various bits
of information that are so useful to operating any kind of an organiza-
tion such as our courts.
We need a placement service. Right now, I am looking for a director
of Court Services and I can only go on whom do you know and whom
can I call up and ask. This is not a very scientific basis, there is no
personnel service, the X.C.C.D. has kind of a want ad section in its
publication, but other than that there is no effective place for service.
We would like to look at the architecture of juvenile court. Right
now we iisually inherit a building designed for an adult court and if
they fit the particular needs of a juvenile hearing, it is a coincidence
and a very rare coincidence. We w^ould like to design the court around
the impact it would have on the child, rather than forcing the child
to fit into tlie architecture.
Lastly, we are trying to set up some standards to judge ourselves so
a judge can look at his court and say, 'T am good at this, and bad at
that," based on objectively measurable national standards.
Judge White from Chicago is trying to work out some of that with-
out any outside funds ; using only our funds.
The third big thrust of the National Council of Juvenile Court
Judges is research. It is nonexistent on some of the way-out frontier
areas. We ai-e tr^dng to put together a project in Pittsburgh right
now, and I think we are going to be successful. Judge Cahill is looking-
for about a half a million for a few years demonstration until we can
get this thing self-suppoiting. It looks like foundations in Pittsburgh
will assist us. We have not asked for public funds nor Government
funds of any kind for this project. We hope it can be financed without
tax funds.
Let me then describe some of the programs in Hennepin County.
]\Iinneapolis is the center of the county. Minnesota has a poi)ulation
of almost 1 million people. The juvenile court holds about 14:,()00 hear-
748
ings a year involving basically maybe 5,000 children. On FBI figures,
I think our crime rate is well below the national average per capita
basis, for whatever reason.
Our juvenile court operates on two basic premises. The first, of
course, is to rehabilitate children. We are not interested in punishing
them for what they did in the past because we don't think it will do
any good. We are trying to rehabilitate, to find why the child did
this, to try to correct the causes so far as the court is able to marshall
the resources to do that. If we can rehabilitate the child, if we can
eliminate the causes, then we can eliminate the crime far more effec-
tively, I think, than just using prisons and fear psychosis. We will use
disciplinary approaches where it is indicated, and we do, but we are
trying to rehabilitate a child ; we are not trying to punish for the past.
We are trying to look to the future.
Our second premise is diversion. We want to keep kids out of court
if we can. We urge the police to screen kids out of the court. If they
can take a child home and the home will take care of the situation,
there is no need to bring them to court. If nothing else, it wastes the
taxpayers' money.
If the police can take him to a youth service bureau and this will
accomplish the purpose, we urge the police to take him there. The
police say they divert from us somewhere around two-thirds of the
cases. We think this is healthy.
We urge other organizations around the community to provide for
children without coming to court. We have, of course, the usual
organizations which operate very effectively: the Boy Scouts, the
YMCA, the organizations that are well-known.
The YMCA and the Boys' Club have developed an activity called
"Detached Workers," street workers if you will. They are a rather hor-
rendous group of people to look at because they dress like the counter-
culture, with the long hair and costumes, and so forth, like that. They
are very effective at getting to the turned-off kids and we think they do
a remarkable job of getting at these people, out of court, without the
need for the court ; probably better than the court could ever do because
they are getting at the child immediately, right in his own bailiwick ;
they are not using the threat of court to get at them.
We have our own intake division in the juvenile court. Every case
that comes to us, whether from the parents which are one of our main
sources, or the police or the schools, are all screened by the intake di-
vision. They do not apply treatment, because they become involved
before there has been due process. Instead they refer the child out to a
treatment program or they send the child back home or they send him
to the family psychiatrist, if there is one. Sixty percent of what comes
to the court is screened out by the court's own intake division. The
court doesn't see these people. As well as you can ever measure such
things, only 8 percent of the kids screened out by intake came back
into court, which is a remarkable rate of return.
We have a standard for the intake division: If the child can and
will be rehabilitated elsewhere, tlie case should not coine to court.
It should come to court only if authority is needed. If the child i? un-
willing, or the family is unwilling, or if there is nothing available to
them without the court, then the case is to come to court. This is the
inrtliod we u :e to creen out some GO percent of the kids.
749
We have developed some other local programs. One is called Oper-
ation De Novo prog-ram. Its mission is to pick up the hard-core kids
before they get to court, sometimes for tlie uptcenth time.
Operation De Xovo picks up these kids that are outside the regular
culture, the kids that are rebelling if you will, the kids that arc on
the edge of militancy. So far it has a remarkable rate of reaching these
kids on a highly intensive basis, often using people who have been
through the mill themselves. It is a good program.
Our adult court has developed a program of getting people out of
jail by screening the people coming into jail, and releasing everyone
they possibly can without bail, those who are going to come back
without the bail. Our jail population has gone down rather radically
because of the program. It is good.
When people do come to court, we have various resources available
to us. The one we are proudest of is the right of speedy trial. The
child — or an adult — who comes to our court has had his first court ap-
pearance within 2 or 3 days; within 2 or o days more he has had his
arraignment appearance ; his trial would normally come in 2 or 3
w-eeks. If he wants it sooner we will provide it sooner. If he is found
guilty or pleads guilty and is in jail, we have the sentencing in 2
weeks. We are trying to ob\'iate tlie need for our jails, trying to cut
down the jail population, which is such a stagnant place to put a
human being.
Obviously, in all courts, we rely heavily on probation, one-to-one
counseling. One officer talking to one child, or one officer talking to one
parent. This is the backbone, I guess, of any service. This, I am sure,
the committee is quite familiar with. We do have supportive things
that go with this. On one hand, the disciplinary approaches for the
childfor whom it might go in one ear and out of the other, who says
all I got was probation. He gave me a lecture and that is it. To get his
attention vre have to do something stronger: Take the kid's drivers
license away if he is middle or upper middle class. We may tell him
to e;o out and work for free a few hours a week. It is useful in some
cases.
Conversely, we have some activity programs. One, the "flying" pro-
gram involves a group of pilots who came to us, private pilots, and
said, could we take some of your kids and we will teach them aerial
navigation, take them ud in our planes and fly them around and show
theni^how to navigate. The kids they took, obviously, began to realize
it is important to" know how to read, it is important to know how to
do mathematics, it is important to know how to work in a team. The
final examination is to plot a triangular, three-city course. The pilot
says, "1*11 follow your results unless it looks like fatal results coiihl
occur." It is quite a successful program ; it has been going on for quite
a few years.
We Increasingly do group work ; an LEAA grant started us on
this, but we are doing more and more. Groups of kids and parents,
groups of kids, groups of parents, encounter groups, as well as the
normal discussive type of group work.
We have various foster homes, and never have enough. We have
some group homes, treatment group homes, six of them in Hennepin
County, are called "Home Away," developed around the same en-
counter group. They go to their regular school or job. "When they are
95-158— 73— pt. 2 8
750
not in scliool or on the job they are back at the home where they have
their ijroup "SYork by way of lielping themselves, getting the strength
that can come from the group.
We have a "PORT" project, which Mr. Schoen indicated is about
to start. They took a building I had planned on using for my court
and my referees. Now it is going to be a PORT authorit}^ and I think
it has a better use for that than the court.
Necessarily, we have institutions. Mr. Schoen alluded to the three
State institutions. There are also two county institutions. I think it
should be made clear, for the record, that there are quite a few other
institutions in the State besides the State and the county ones which
we use. There are private institutions operated by various religious
orders or operated under ether charitable structures, for the emotion-
ally disturbed child, but most of those children have come through
court as a delinquent or a status-offense type of child. It would be
unfair statistically to say we only have the three State institutions and
the two county.
Our institutions, once more, every one I have seen, and I tried to
visit them regularly, are definitely not warehousing institutions, not
the juvenile jails. We have shifted. Now we build a mix: The child
comes out and in a couple of weeks he works out his own negotiated
treatment plan with the social worker, and thev both kind of contract.
The social worker promises to be accountable for providing it and the
child promises to accept the program. We are trying to provide them
with so many options we can individualize the treatment plan for
the particular child.
We had a meeting last week to begin the first stages of consolidating
the programs of the two largest counties with the State services to
consolidate programs, close institutions if they are not needed, or use
the resources to better advantage, possibly get less use of the private
institutions since their per diem cost is higher.
We have heavy reliance on volunteers, both in our institutions and
our programs. About 4 years ago, somebody came and said, "T^t's try
volunteers,'- and I was dead against it. How could you bring in volun-
teers : We need professionals. We have just passed the 400th volunteer
and are still going. I favor the volunteer program verv stronglv. If
the volunteer is properlv trained— and that is a big "if" — and if the
volunteer is properly supervised — and that is another big "if" — then
the volunteer can do wonderful work, actually rehabilitating and
helping kids.
I hope I haven't overtalked my time.
Chairman Pepper. ]Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Judge Arthur, you now have served approximately 12
years as a juvenile division judge. Based on that experience, and in
your capacity as the president of the National Council of Juvenile
Court Judges, could you describe for us what effect the Gault case
has had on your operations and the operations of the juvenile courts
in general ?
Judge Arthttr. I guess that de]">ends on which juvenile court judge
you ask. In my case. I almost had the feeling the U.S. Supreme
Court came to my court, looked at it, and said, "All of the rest of the
country should do the same thing." It had no impact on my particular
751
-court except to make it possible to get more public defenders and one
more court reporter.
A lot of judges resist it. The judge feels, "I am a lawj'er, I can
protect tlie child's rights while he is in my court." I would say in
the smaller jurisdictions, this is the general feeling.
One of the difficulties a juvenile court faces is that it is very hard
to appeal our decision. The kids haven't got any money to appeal; the
parents are less than interested most of the time in appealing; LEAA
does not supply appeal money that I am aware of ; our country doesn't
want to supply it. I know my decision is final in all too many cases.
I wish we could find a way to appeal; then maybe we could bring
in the better impact of Gault. However, in defense, may I urge that a
juvenile court proceeding is in two parts. One is adjudication: is the
child guilty or not guilty. This is Gault^ and this is full due process,
and tliis I iDelieve in very thoroughly. A child is entitled to all rights
of an adult. But the juvenile court proceeding is something more than
that. It is always a disposition act, and the U.S. Supreme Court has
said to us, "Due process does not apply at the disposirional level." AH
we insist on is a fair hearing and I think we give them a fair hearing.
Gault applies to a small number of our cases because so many plead
guilty and don't go to trial. I think the impact of GauU is greatly over-
rated.
Mr. Lyxch. How many judges did you say?
Judge Arthur. INlyself and five referees, who are subject to my
aDpointmont. I like it tliis way. I like the referee system. AVe are con-
sistent. "We may be consistently wrong but we are consistent.
Mr. Lynch. What do they do, sir ?
Judge Arthur. They take any case I assign to them. In fact, they
take every case, except that I take all sensitive cases or cases that
miaht be appealed, or cases where the public is worried, or where
there is a difficult point of law. I try to take everything tricky, hard,
and interesting.
Mr. LYNcnrThe referees to whom you assign cases, I assume when
you say you assign cases to them, they have them from start to finish.
Are the V attorneys ?
Judge Arthur. Thev don't have them from start to finish. They
rotate calendars considerably. He may have an arraignment calendar.
It is too complicated in a ma^ss production count to follow a case. Two
of them are attornevs and three of them are not. The two who are at-
torneys handle most of the Gault aspects— the trials, the arraignments,
this tvpe of thing. The two who are not— ex-probation officers-
specialize in the dispositional aspects of the court. The other man is
basically for administrative purposes. He is the business manager of
the court.
;Mr. Lyxch. How do you track or followup the juvenile who has
appeared before you and whom you have committed to an institution,
or to probation, or whatever? Plow do you know, as a judge, whether
or not your sentence, your treatment, has been effective ?
Judge Arthur. Every time we make a disposition we order a prog-
ress report. It mav be iii a week, it may be a month. -3 months, 0 months.
It has to be in at least a year. That progress report must come in writ-
ing to us, unless we refer the child to the State, at which point our au-
thority ceases and the youth commission takes over.
752
ISIr. Lynch. You set no feedback on that ?
Judge Arthtjr. There is no feedback. We are told sometimes several
years later he has just been discharged, and that is about all we hear.
jMr. Lynch. Would you like to have feedback on children who have
appeared before you and have been committed to the State
De])artment ?
Judge Arthur. Yes, very much. And what we started last week, the
three metropolitan counties working closer with the State, can develop
that. I think the State would not be adverse to this.
Mr. Lynch. Would it be useful on a national basis to have all juve-
nile court judges receive data on children who have appeared before
them to find out what has happened to those kids ?
Judge Arthur. I sincoi-ely think so. llie judge needs to knovs' that.
When I use this type of a program or that type of program, these
succeed or those didn't. If nothing else, this may guide the judge in his
future dispositions.
Mr. Lynch. I guess it would be a good training device for the city
magistrate or judge. Is this something that any juvenile court judge
that you know of has applied to LEAA for funding for ?
Judffe Arthur. There are several answers to that, TvTr. Lynch. Tlie
city of St. Louis, as I understand, is trying to develop a kind of social
profile of children. The last I heard, they developed about 4R5 different
profiles and then they were trying to compare the disposition and the
recidivism with the profile and try to say that if you get profile No.
879, probation is apt to worls'. but an institution vron't: tlint type of
thing. St. Louis is miderwav. We had a program like that in Hennepin
Countv, we applied for a LEAA grant, we received the grant on a
tentative l^asis the day before they went from discretionary funds to
State block funds and our grant got lost in the shuffle. I don't know of
any place that is doing a computerized analysis as thoroughly as 1
think it should be done.
]\f r. Lynch. But your testimony is it would be desirable this would
be done ?
Judge Arthitr. This is the type of thing we would like to get out of
our Pittsburgh project. We would like to know an awful lot more about
what works and wliat doesn't worlc, and what are these kids about.
We resist answering on the basis of what do you do with a mi^rde'-er
Gt rapist. We are trying to say what do you do with a child who
comes from a broken home and can't read and is a minority. Let's take
the factors that force them into deliiiquency — or don't keep him away
from it — instead of looking at outward symbols such as type of offense.
Mr. Lynch. Was it your earlier testimony, on new programs, inno-
vative programs, desirable programs, that more or less you and your
collea.^iies Avho are iuvenile judges hear al^out those inadvertently;
there is no organized, comprehensive system for the dissemination of
information ?
Jud.ofe Arthur. That is correct. We do have the "bull session." I
guess that is one of the best things we have. We have our annrn'' con-
ventions. A lot of time will be spent around the beer table. This is
where I will learn a great deal. My own State also has State jud"-es
meetino-s. The bull session is obviouslv one of the valuable parts of it.
Mr. Lynch. I would infer from what you are saying, it woidd be
desirable that there be a clearin.o;house.
753
Judge Arthur. Perhaps.
Mr. Lynch. Perhaps, a national clearinghouse describing and evalu-
ating programs in this held.
Judge Arthur. We have applied to LEAA for a grant for tluit,
but we have been told not to get our hopes up at all.
Mr. Lynch. Why were you told that, do you know ?
Judge Arthur. We applied for all kinds of grants, and I think they
Icind of saitl you are only entitled to this much and some of tlie others
get higher priority. I am just guessing.
Mr. Lynch. You say "we"" ?
Judge Arthur. Meaning the National Council of Juvenile Court
J udges.
Mr. Lynch. Judge, duiing your opening remarks you said that you
vievred it as your task, or your goal, to correct causes of delinquency
insofar as tlie court is able to marshal the resources to do tiiat. Do
jou have those resources in Plennepin County ?
Judge Arthur. I think we liave them. I think we have them more
than most counties. Our taxpayers have been very liberal and I thank
them publicly for it. "We do not have what we need on several pro-
grams. Part is just the basic research of knowing why the child is
doing this and 1 think the behavioral scientist at the university needs
some grant projects. This again is our Pittsburgh problem — ^let's do
research furtlier on the child. But we need the programs.
Chairman Pepper. I am sorry to have to interrupt you. There is a
quorum call on the floor and we have to run over and vote. We will
just take a brief recess.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please. You
may proceed, Judge.
Mr. Lynch. Judge, just before the recess, I had asked you about
^^our statement that juvenile courts try to correct causes insofar as
possible with the resources at hand. Then I had asked you, in fact,
what resources you have at hand for referring young people in trou-
ble, for treatment, or whatever. I wonder if you could describe for us,
very briefly, wliat kind of agencies are available, and to what extent
3^ou and 3^our referees make use of those agencies.
Judge Arthur. The basic agency vre use first for diagnosis is the
probation officer. We allow him 2 or 3 weeks to make a diagnosis of
the child, to talk to the child, the parents, the school, and so forth.
Then he prepares a report, a diagnosis, a prognosis, for us, which is
the basic document on which we make our decision — even thougli we
may or may not follow his recommendatio]i. He has accessible to him a
psychologist and psychiatrist, if he needs them. We would like to have
a little more of that type of service, but we are managing. He has
available a mental health clinic, if that will be of some value to him.
So as far as the resources of the court allow, in deciding what we
should do, we use heavily the 1-to-l probation approach. We have a
county home school and that has a varied approach; fortunatel}^,
underused because of communit}' resources.
]\Ir. Lynch. I wonder if you could venture an opinion, in your ca-
pacity as president of your association, as to whether or not juvenile
court judges on a national basis have an adequate number of resources,
in your term, subsidiary resources, both public and private to whom
754
tliey can refer young people who ma}' not need incarceration but who
desperately need treatment of some kind. Plow do judges do that?
How do they find out about those agencies that are public or private
and can serve? Is that done in a systematic way? Are there referral
handbooks? How does the judge get that information?
Judge Arthur. That is kind, of a funny thing. I think the honest
answer is that each judge will develop his own chain of resources
and sometimes won't tell anybody else because that would fill up the
beds that are available. But I have nightmares, thinking I have a
child who needs a bed in a particular type of institution, and I know
there must be some institution somewhere around the United States
and I don't know it exists, and in the meantime it may be going bank-
rupt because there are not enough kids coming into its particular
type of service.
One of the things we would like is kind of a national computer
service on beds available for children, for treatment around the
United States. This is for the emotionally disturbed child, among
other things. Very specific types of treatment are available, but we
don't know what they are. I know what they are in my area, you
would know what they are in your area, but we have no way of
knowing what they are around the United States.
Mr. Lynch. That information could be put in a data bank ?
Judge Arthtir. Yes.
Mr. Lyxcii. Agaiii. I infer from what you are saying that it would
be desirable if we did have such a data bank, Avith that kind of data
in it.
Judge Arthur. Very much so.
Mr. Lynch. Which would be made generally known to judges, es-
pecially juvenile court judges, and other people within the criminal
justice system.
Judge Artitfr. It would be an expensive thing because it is obso-
lete the day it is done. So many things are coming up and other things
are dying down and the emphasis is changing. So it would be an
expensive thing to put it together and keep it current, keep it dis-
seminated. It should be done.
Mr. Lynch. I understand on a national ]')asis it might be expensive.
There is at least one State that I know of that keeps a looseleaf re-
ferral handbook which is updated every 8 to 6 months, and supplies
it to literally thousands of people within the juvenile and adult
criminal justice system.
You testified, Judge, that you handle 14,000 cases per annum,
roughly.
Judge Arthur. Hearings.
Mr. Lynch. Hearings. "What is the dilTercnce between a hearing
and a case ?
Judge Arthur. Well, this is not 14.000 different children. A child
may have a detention hearing and an arraignment hearing, a trial,
disposition, or redisposition.
Mr. Lynch. Approximateh^ how many individual juveniles does
your court see in a given year ?
Judge Arthur. In the delinuency area, I would estimate around
5,000.
/oo
Mr. Lynch. Of that 5.000, liow many are people wlio, if they
were not juveniles, we could otherwise characterize as real criminals?
Judge ^^jiTHFR. You mean the status offenders ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
Judge Arthur. For girls I would estimate that probably about half ^
maybe a little more than half of the girls are here for status offenses ;
the boys, it Avould be somewhere around, I would guess, again, around
15 or 20 percent are in court for status offenses.
Mr. Lynch. These are children who have, in fact, committed com-
mon law or statutory crimes. About 15 or 20 percent, if I understand
you correctly, have stolen automobiles
Judge Arthur. I was putting it the other way. As for boys, I would
say 15 percent of the boys are in court on status offenses. About 80
percent for offenses which would be criminal for adults. But for girls,
it is about half and half.
Mr. Lynch. To what extent do you see the 80 percent of the young
men who come before you who have, in fact, committed crimes or
seriously delinquent acts ; to what extent can you determine whether or
not they are what we would otherwise characterize as first offenders ?
Judge xYrthur. It is hard to say, particularly in the system I was
describing, because they may have been before the police and the police
may have released them. So, if they do come back, they are already
second offenders. They may have been before our intake and intake
may have released them. They may have been before our court. We do
not carry adequate data. I have a very strong feeling that recidivism
is a very badly used term. It is too easy to say the child was before us
in 1969 for an offense and before us in 1973 for an offense, so he is a
recidivist. These are police-style figures, they are not ours.
Mr. Lynch. Does the police department, does the intake division
or unit, keep records of the fact the youngster had appeared before
them and was summarily discharged ?
Judge Arthur. Not summarily, but at least released. Yes, we dO'
have the figures. We are trying to feed them into the county's com-
puter, but it is not functioning very well yet.
Mr. Lynch. You do not, as a matter of course, get that information.
The young man appears before you. He may have had five previous
contacts with the police ?
Judge Arthur. Well, as an individual child I would have most of
that before me at the time I see him. Not necessarily all of the police
releases, but I would have all of the things for which he has been
referred to the court.
Mr. Lynch. On a typical young man who appears before you for
auto theft, for breaking and entering, for that kind of crime, do those
people frequently have lengthy prior records of any kind ?
Judge Arthur. The word "lengthy" could be misleading. Thev do
have prior records. I would say that, as a guess — I wasn't prepared for
the question but I should have been — not more than five or six priors.
After this point we may begin sending them to the State.
Mr. Lynch. That would be five or six prior incidents which did not
result in appearance before you or another juvenile judge?
Judge Arthur. I am sorry. I may have missed your previous ques-
tion. We keep them in court possibly, as a rough figure, for maybe five
756
or six offenses before we refer them to the State facility. The kids
whom we see, yes, some of them have been to intake, we know some
have been released by the police, we know some we have seen ourselves
previously. I am only aware of the ones that have been to court
previously.
Mr. Lynch. Let me give you a hypothetical case, A young man, 16,
17 years old, who appears before you and the charge is, let's say, bur-
glary. The same charge could also be grand larceny. He has no prior
record of any kind. You make a determination thai he has not before
been seen by the police, has not been through any kind of juvenile divi-
sion intake proceeding. How do you handle a matter like that ?
Judge Arthur. We almost disregard the fact it is burglary or grand
larceny. What we try to find out is why did he burgle or steal, ^yhat
got him into the situation. Was he having trouble at home, which is so
predominant? Is he having trouble in school; is he having trouble
reading ? We try to find out the causation, what got him into the mess,
so we can correct that.
Mr. Lynch. Based on your extensive experience in this area, is there
a typical causation factor involved ? Is there one that crops up more
than others?
Judge Arthur. This is a funny response to that. It is everything,
from television on down the line. It is very hard to generalize. I would
not, other than to say that frequently it is a problem inside the family,
and I don't mean by this the parents are always at fault, this kind of
thing. Another thing is axiomatic : Juvenile delinquents have a read-
ing problem. Maybe this is a cause, maybe it is a symptom.
Mr. Lynch. "Wiiat does your court do about that ?
Judge Arthur. In our county home school we have about 12 teach-
ers— miich is one of the reasons per diems go way up when you put a
child into an institution — you have to provide teachers. About 11 are
reading teachers.
Mr. Lynch. "Wlien you have the youngster, boy or girl, before you
charged with a serious offense, and you make a determination that
there is a serious problem in the family, what authority do you have
seeing to it that that youngster gets counseling; what authority do you
have to also see to it that the family participates in that counseling?
Judge Arthur. The Minnesota statute, which is a little bit unique
in this, says if I put a child on probation I can make reasonable rules
for his conduct and his parents' conduct. So, riding a truck through
that loophole, the "reasonable rules for his parents' conduct," I can
do quite a few things.
Mr. Lynch. Do you as par for the course require the parents to par-
ticipate in counseling and/or other kinds of treatment?
Judge Arthur. On various occasions we put the parents on proba-
tion, not the child.
Mr. Lynch. IIow does that work ?
Judge Arthttr. They dont like it.
Mr. Lynch. Do they generally follow your probationary rules?
Judge Arthur. Yes, they do. This amounts to the fact the proba-
tion officer will see the parents every 2 weeks and try to work with the
]iarents on how come Johnny is in this situation? Wliat have you
done or what can you do ?
757
We have a program called the family education center, which
meets on Saturday mornings. This is where parents and kids come
together as a group, sometimes 100 or so of them. It is rather care-
fully structured without appearing to be, and we order the parents
to go to three of those sessions. You can keep going after that if you
want to. There are various family counseling services in our area, as
I am sure there are in others. Tlie parents ma}^ be given the option to
go pick up a private social worker, they can afford it.
Yes, we do require the parents to use whatever resource we have
available, if we think it is useful.
Mr. Lynch. Have they been evaluated ?
Judge Arthlte. The family education center has been evaluated
and we think it is quite effective. The others: It is the same problem^
how do you evaluate a program, find out its effectiveness. I don't know.
Until we develop better figures on recidivism, we won't knovc.
Mr. Lynch. Doubtless you have juveniles in trouble before you who
have been picked up by police in the early hours or late hours in the
evening, as the case may be. I assume you see those youngsters after
what, a f ter the intake proceeding ?
Judge Artpiur. If the kid is picked up and put in our detention
area he must come to court within 1 court day, within 6 business
liours after the arrest ; if this is what you mean.
Mr. Lynch. Are there mental health or other social services oper-
ating in your metropolitan area that do not close their doors at 5 p.m. ?
Judge' Arthur. In our detention center itself, tliere is the intake
officer, a master of social work. He is there all night long, 24 hours a
day, the man who makes the decision on whether to hold or not,
whether to send them to the general hospital for mental, and who
makes the basic decision of the first impact on the court's authority.
Air. Lynch. How adequate are those staff' resources? Do you have
enough people?
Judge Arthur. In Hennepin County as of today, yes. I shouldn't
say that. I should be an empire builder; but, yes, as of today, we are
adequately staffed.
INIr. Lynch. ^Vliy do you predicate "as of today" ?
Judge Arthur. "Because a year ago we weren't, and I don't know
about next year. Our county board is beginning to pull in its horns
a bit.
Mr. Lynch. Are you seeing more juveniles than you did, for in-
stance, 2 or 3 years ago ?
Judge Arthur. No, I think our caseload is going down as we press
more and more of this intake screening, of diverting kids away, as
facilities such as Home Away get going, kids go there without going
to court. I think the diversion is cutting cur caseload down.
Mr. Lynch. Does your diversionary unit send youngsters to private
as well as public agencies for treatment of various kinds ?
Judge Arthur. Frequently, if the family has money or some kiiid
of health insurance. JMost health insurance policies, as I understand it,
will pay for psychiatric or social work therapy.
Mr. Lynch. No further questions.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. ]McDonald, do you have any questions?
Mr. McDonald. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
758
Judge, from your position as president of the National Council on
Juvenile Court Judges, obviously, you have an overview of the nation-
wide quality of juvenile court judges. First of all, what is the quality;
do you think it is good or it needs to be improved ; and, if so, is it being
improved ?
Judge Arthur. I think I would answer, Mr. McDonald, on a popula-
tion basis. If you go to a county such as some we have in Minnesota,
with 3,000 or 4,000 total population, the juvenile court judge may see a
case or two in the course of a year and he has no special expertise, and
you probably are not going to get him to get any expert training. He
may be just a guy dedicated, but not skilled, in the business. If you go
up to the larger cities you are going to get people who make their life
work out of it and they are anxious to go out and get the extra train-
ing. I would say, in my mind, the criterion of a good judge is just how
much expert training he has received in his particular forte.
Mr. McDonald. Obviously, in Minnesota, you have a large urban
population, but if you go into some of the smaller States, rural States,
do you have youth coming before persons serving as juvenile court
judges who actually have no training ?
Judge Arthur. Yes. Again, in the smaller communities, there is an-
other factor that works against us. In many States, if not most, the
juvenile court is a court of lower jurisdiction rather than a court of
general jurisdiction. In Minnesota, exce))t in the two major counties, it
is a court of tertiary level and if any of those judges become expert and
they are offered a job on the court of general jurisdiction, the salary is
enough higher they are going to take it and we lose them in the juvenile
field.
One of the outstanding examples is Judge Tilman from Atlanta,
who moved from a lower court into a higher court. He loved the juve-
nile field and was trying to m.ake his lifework out of it. V>\\t when he
was offered $5,000 or $10,000 more a year he couldn't turn it down.
We would like to become a branch of the general jurisdiction, carry-
ing the ]:)restige of that court, the salaiy of that court, and I would
go on and say we would also like combat pay.
Mr. McDoN^ALD. You alluded to various approaches, rehabilitation,
disciplinary. Can you tell us if there is a place for discipline in the
juvenile court system?
Judge Arthur. I think so. The story on that may be like the farmer
out in Missouri, who observed his neighbor hitting a nnile over the
head with a 2 by 4 and said. "That's a terrible thing you do to your
mule. Talk to him, rub him behind the ear and be nice to him and he
will do what you want him to."
The farmer hit him once more and said, "I'll do that as soon as I get
his attention."
I think with some of the kids we see, first we have to get their atten-
tion, and there is nothing more attention-getting than telling a middle
or upper middle-class suburban kid that you need his driver's license
for a month or so. It takes them 2 or 3 minutes to get that license
across the table to you.
Mr. McDojSTAld. That is discipline, not lockinsr them up in jail?
Judge Arthur. We don't lock them up in jail. We do not use the de-
tention center as a dispositional method.
Mr. McDonald. I have no further questions.
759
Chairman Pj^ppek. Do you use in any case the jury system with re-
gard to the juvenile oii'onder?
Judge Aktiiur. We do not in Minnesota. Under the Supreme Court
ruling, I guess we could if we wanted to, but it says in our statute, spe-
cifically, no jury in juvenile.
Chairman Pepper. And you haven't had any trouble with the Fed-
eral courts on that ?
Judge Arthur. Xo, sir. No one ever asked for a jury in my court
that I am aware of. I have had no request for it. As I understand, in the
States where jury trial is available in juvenile court, it is rarely asked
for.
Chairman Pepper. "What Federal funds, so far as you know. Judge,
are available for use in this juvenile field, either juvenile deliquency
or juvenile court system, or correctional system, or any aspects dealing
with youthful offenders ?
Judge Artfifr. Our Xational Council recei^-es — and I am guessing
now, I should know it — somewhere around $200,000 a year, in various
smaller grants that would total about that auiount, going into our vari-
ous programs. j\Iy own court has about $150,000 a year coming out of
our local State crime funds for various things.
Chairman Pepper. LEAA money ?
Judge Arthur. LE AA money ; yes, sir. The nioney is available.
Chairman Pepper. Is that sort of money being made available to
juvenile courts all over the country ?
Judge Arthur. Not as much as we would think appropriate, Mr.
Chairman. I think, as the previous witness indicated, a lot of it has
gone mto police hardware and I think it would be better if more
would go into the judiciary field.
Cliairman Pepper. Do you know any other Federal funds available
for any aspects of the youth program ?
Judge Arthur. A]iparently. some HEW funds may be available in
the noncorrectional aspect, such as for the neglected child, that type of
thing, or into educative programs, to the tutoring programs. We have
not been able to tap those successfully, although we understand they
are available.
Chairman Pepper. You heard me ask Mr. Schoen whether he
thought it best, in order to induce the States to put into effect the
most innovative programs for juvenile offenders they can discover,
to have Federal funds. What do you say about that and, if so, what
percentage of the cost of an innovative program should be borne by
the Federal Government ?
Judge Arthur. That is quite a question, ]\rr. Chairman.
Yes, I think Federal funds should be used as an inducement to
move the States into the rehabilitative-type program rather than the
warehousing-type programs that have been used in the past, the
Cliarles Dickens type of approach. I would ura^e that it be done in
such a way that you don't phase the old out until you have the new
phasing in, so you don't have to take some child who is a very danger-
ous person and do nothing with him because you have neither the new
nor old.
Chairman Pepper. You know Mr. James, no doubt, who made a
survev for the Christian Science Monitor of juvenile correction in-
stitutions over the country ?
760
Jiidse Arthur. Yes, sir.
Chairman Pepper. And the fihn he directed is going to be presented
here before this committee later this week. He gave me the horrifying
information that, I believe he said, 15 to 20 percent of the girls that
were in these institutions generally were there because they were run-
aways and they were runaways from home because they were sexually
assaulted by their stepfathers or fathers. Have you found any mate-
rial frequency of that sort of offense ?
Judge Arthur. We get some incest cases and, curiously, they came
to the juvenile court because the girl would not testify against her
father in a felony case. Why, I don't know. They come in as con-
tributing to the delinquency of a minor, which comes to juvenile court.
I get maybe one a year of such cases, which is not a substantial number.
Chairman Pepper. And you can't do anything to the father because
the girl is unwilling to testify against him ?
Judge Arthur. No, sir ; I have a case on appeal right now where a
father sexually assaulted all three of his girls on a regular basis and the
mother stood by. She was asked, "How come you let this go on?" And
she said, "He might divorce me if I take them away." Finally, she
took the children away from him and he was extremely upset and de-
manded she return the children. And I have this on appeal.
Chairman Pepper. Was he prosecuted for that offense ?
Judge Arthur. No, sir; the prosecutor felt the girls' testimony
would not stand up. They were very young.
Chairman Pepper. And tlie wife will testify for the husband?
Judge Arthur. The wife left the State and we are not quite sure
whei-e she is.
Chairman Pepper. Now, Judge, according to your observation, what
percentage of the boys and girls who get into your juvenile court later
wind up in adult penal institutions ?
Judge Arthur. I should have anticipated this question, Mr. Chair-
man. I do2i't kiiow. I am sorry ; I don't kn.ow.
Chairman Pepper. We had testimony from one of the juveiiile
judges in Florida, Judge Orlando of Fort Lauderdale, and my recollec-
tion is his estimate was about 50 percent; and I heard others use some
similar figure.
What about school dropouts? What percentage of the boys and girls
who come before your court are school dropouts ?
Judge Arthur. In ]Minnesota, they can't drop out until they are 16.
Prior to that time, the school will bring truancy petitions into the ju-
venile court. But if you take the status of offenses out of the juvenile
court— and there is a national movement to do that — then there will be
no enforcement of this at all. You will be repealing the compulsory
school attendance laws if you do that. The schools do bring us truancy
cases where the child drops out before age 16, and we do what we can.
After 16, the child can drop out, and under the curious law of Min-
nesota he can drop out whether the school likes it or not and whether
the ])arents like it or not. The child makes his own decision.
Chairman Pepper. Those who drop out before they graduate from
high school, have you any figures as to the percentage of the young
people coming into your court who drop out before they get through
high school ?
761
Judge Aktiiur. I have no figures and I would hesitate to guess. "We
do linow the kids we see all have an educational x^robleni, basically a
reading problem.
Chairman Pepper. Would it be likely that most of your students
that you deal with are dropouts ^
Judge Arthur. I would question whether it would be most, but it
might be close to half. But that is a guess.
Chairman I^epper. Did you say that they have reading programs;
that is, you find that boys and girls have a serious reading problem
and you do try to give them some reading instruction ?
Ji'idge Arthur. First we try to work through the school system to
find a "reading program that will fit them, with some of the numerous
special programs they have. If they don't, we will try to use our own
resources, and if we institutionalize a child in our county institution
reading is one of the main thrusts of the program.
Chairman Pepper. I learned in California recently, when we were
having hearings out there, in one school, which was in the suburbs
of Sail Francisco, there were two or three classes of students who were
in the eighth grade whose reading level was not above the third grade.
JudgeARTiiuR. I can believe that, ]\Ir. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. We have a shocking reading problem in man}' of
the schools of the country, don't we ?
Judge Arthur. I had a child before me recently, Mr. Chairman,
who was a senior in high school and was listed in the 102d percentile
of reading, which implies, the school said, that 102 percent of the chil-
dren in that school can read better than he can. I questioned their
mathematics.
Chairman Pepper. That is pretty good.
One other thing, in respect to this whole problem of dealing with
l)eople who commit crime, what influence do you think incarceration
has as a deterrent to the commission of crime ?
Judge Arthur. Zero. I guess. If the person who is committing the
crime knows he would be caught, and they always assume they won't,
every criminal I ever questioned in sentencing has felt, in effect, ''I
was too smart to get caught." Of course he did get caught. But if he
knew tliat he would get caught, then I think incarceration might be a
threat. But they dont' expect to be caught.
Chairman Pepper. As to whether a man gets 20 years, 30 years, 40
years, or 5 years, do you think it makes any difference as a deterrent
to the commission of crimes ?
Judge Arthur. I would support the statement that the longer he
is kept in prison the more apt he is to commit a major crime when he
leaves.
Chairman Pepper, That was also testified to here yesterday by Dr.
Jerome Miller.
Judge Arthur. I would think as to most of these people, instead of
holdino; them for a period of years, the courts should do as we do in our
juvenile area: Hold him until he is able to live in society again, how-
ever short or long that may be.
Chairman Pepper. Do^ you favor judges imposing indeterminate
sentences, the release date to be determined by the correctional au-
thorities, or the judge giving a fixed number of years as a sentence?
Judge Artiiiu. 1 would lavor leaving it to the people who get to
762
know him and see the change in the man's personality as the years go
by. In other words, let him be released when he is able to make it in
the community, however long it may take.
Chairaian Pepper. I am inclined to agree with you, although some
say that has a frustrating influence upon the individual, because he can
see no hope. He has got his own destiny in his hands, if he chose re-
habilitation.
Judge Aethir. We had a prosrram in my county school where they
went for 6 weeks and that was it. and we had other programs which
were indefinite, and the staff said the kids worked much harder on
their problems when it is an indefinite thing because they know they
wouldn't get out until they had solved their problems.
Chairman Pepper. Are you familiar with the legislation proposed
by Senator Bayh?
Judc^e Artiiur. There are two bills. He is interested in one. S. 5613,
and the other is H.K. 45, something of that nature. Yes, sir, I am
familiar with them.
Chairman Pepper. Senator Bayh is going to testify here tomorrow
on his legislation, at 10 o'clock in the morning, and we probably,
sometime during the week, will also have Representative Railsback,
who with the cooperation of this committee has been initiating some
juvenile court legislation in the House of Representatives.
Judge Artiitir. I understood Senator Cook has joined Senator Bayh
on that bill that you mentioned.
Chairman PEPPER.Very good.
Judge Arthihr. And Senator Percy has shown considerable interest
in it.
Chairman Pepper. Judge, how much time do you spend in Wash-
ington ? Do you spend most of your time at home ?
Judge Arthur. In my current job as president, Mr. Chairman, I
seem to get nroiuid the country. I am gone from mv State about a day
every week. But this will slow down. I do get to Wasliington four or
five times a year.
Chairman Pepper. '\^nien we come to the preparation of our report,
if we do so, we want to consult with you to get your advice and counsel
on it.
Judo;e Artttitr. I would be very honored.
Chairman Pepper. Tliank you.
[Judge Arthur's prepared statement follows :]
Prepared Statement of Lindsay G. Arthur, Judge, District Court, Juvenile
Division, Minneapolis, Minn., and President, National Council of Juve-
nile Court Judges
Mr. Chainnan, may I thank you and the Committee for devoting your time
and your energy in seeking means of helping America's children in trouble. The
need of course is great. But the satisfactions of helping children are greater.
New and promising techniques are being tried and proven methods which obviate
and complement the Jiivenile Courts ; new community resources are being de-
veloped to open and supplant the institutions. I thank you for the opportunity
to describe the activities of one Court and to express the views of the National
Council of Juvenile Court Judges of which I have the honor to be President.
763
I. NATIONAL COUNCIL OP JUVENILE COURT JUDGES
Perhaps I may briefly describe our National Council. We believe that we are
the strongest membership organization of judges in the United States. The
Courts of our active members have jurisdiction over more than seventy-tive per
cent of the children of the United States. Fifteen years ago our budget was less
than a thousand dollars a year, now it is nearly three-quarters of a million,
mostly from non-governmental sources, with every promise of substantial further
growth as we become more and more recognized as the principal vehicle for
improving the juvenile justice system. We have assembled a highly qualified
staff. We have fashioned a college for advanced professional training. We have
developed publications which up-date our information and concepts, and provide
a forum for interchange of ideas. We think we have a place in the future for
helping judges to help children, reducing delinquency and crime and broken
homes.
A. TRAINING
The principal thrust of our National Council is training : Over two thousand
judicial personnel and over one thousand of their staff have been exposed to
our instruction and materials, mostly at our college in Reno, but also at institutes
and training sessions in and about the covmtry. Our ultimate goal is to provide
every Judge and Probation Officer with at least two weeks of intensive formal
training before he becomes involved with his first case, and with at least one
week of refresher training every year thereafter. It's an ambitious goal, but
it will be met because it must be met. Juvenile justice personnel require and
must have access to a specialized expertise if they are fully to realize their poten-
tiality for substantially reducing crime.
B. SUPPORTRE SERVICES
A second thrust of our Council is to provide services for juvenile court judges.
We have an excellent law digest, providing every month, notes on the latest
juvenile law cases. We have a quarterly which is used both for issues containing
various ai'ticles of interest and issiies designed as handbooks on a particular
subject. We intend to develop further services. On too many of them we are only
making a start :
Statistics. — There is a crying need for statistical data. Current crime
and delinquency rates are based on police .statistics. They include cases that
are never referred to court, cases where the defendant is guilty of a lesser
charge, or not guilty at all. They treat any second offense as recidivism,
however distant in time, dissimilar in nature, or different in seriousness.
Treatment Manual. — There is a great need for a manual of treatment
methods so that each judge can profit by the successful . . . and unsuccess-
ful . . . techniques of his conferees. Similarly there is need for a national
clearing house of resources, rather than, as now, leaving each court to its own
resources which may be too meager, or too duplicative.
Date. — There is need for comparative data on caseloads, salaries, costs.
Placement Service. — There is need for a placement service for staff persons,
presently we must rely only on a word-of-mouth, whom-do-you know basis.
Architecture. — There is need for study of court facilities and buildings to
determine how to achieve maximum rehabilitative impact, even from furni-
ture and fixtures, fitting the courtroom to the child's needs rather than the
child to the judge's comfort.
Accreditation. — There is need for objective standards by which juvenile
courts can grade themselves and find and correct their deficiencies. Nothing
such now exists. We intend to supply them for our members.
0. RESEARCH
The third thrust of our effort is for basic research. We are currently seeking
to assemble private funds in Pittsburgh for a center for this purpose, where
various and varying experts can be brought together for intensive and prag-
matic consideration of the multitudinous frontiers of knowledge needed to
expand the effectiveness of Juvenile Courts in their rehabilitative efforts to
protect the public and help the children.
We are a young and strong organization, dedicated to a single purpose, with
proven expertise, with ability to help judges help children and reduce crime.
764
II. JUVENILE COUET FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
I wear another hat today : as Judge of the Juvenile Division of the District
Court for Hennepin County, Minnesota, a jurisdiction of almost exactly a million
people, a Court which holds about fourteen thousands juvenile hearings each
year, hearings which involve about five thousand children. We are in a con-
tinuous state of ferment, constantly trying to improve the protection which we
try to give to the public and the stamina we try to give to the chairman.
A. DIVERSION
Our guiding principles are rehabilitation rather than punishment and diversion
rather than authoritative judicial process. We recognize that the Court is an
instrument of authority, which should only be used when authority is neces-
sary. The Court process is expensive, it is traumatic, it may generate more
hostilities than it resolves. If a child and his family can and will obtain needed
help voluntarily, the help may be more effective. But if the child or the family
cannot, or will not, obtain the services which are needed for the child's reha-
bilitation and the public's protection, then the Court must intervene to require
submission to help.
Comnmnitji Services.- — The community in Hennepin County has generated
numerous resources which forestall or divert delinquents and potential de-
linquency. There are various academic options within and without the school
system, since reading and educational deficiencies are surely an important
cause of crime. There are Youth Service Bureaux and crisis centers and Scout.s
and church programs and neighborhood centers and minority-oriented activities.
Among the most effective in reaching the children who have left our world
for drugs and revolt are the Detached Workers of the Boys Clubs and the
Y.M.C.A.. people who go inside the counter-culture at considerable sacrifice
to themselves in order to be needed and available.
Police Diversion. — The police in the area try to resolve what they can within
legal and constitutional limits, referring possibly a third of their contacts to
parents or to community resources for help. The children they divert, do from
time to time become involved in further illegal activity ... as they do to any
other agency.
Court Diversion. — The Court maintains an '•Intake Unit" which screens all
incoming eases, studying the police reports, conferring v,'ith the families, con-
sulting with the prosecutors. They are able to refer some sixty per cent of the
cases away from the Court, with a remarkably low return rate. Other cases, both
juvenile and adult, are screened by "Operation De Novo" which looks for tough
and hard core delinquents. Over the few years of their existence they have
developed a considerable skill in reaching these people with whom nobody else
has succeeded. Somewhat similar is a screening service by the criminal Court's
own staff to release without bail every adult who can be relied on to return ; they
have gambled heavily on human nature and won, our jails are considerably less
populated but few of those released have been absconded.
6. Resources Available to the Court
Speedy Trinl. — Both the adult Criminal Division and the Juvenile Division
maintain their calendars so that an arrested person is brought to Court within
two business days of arrest. If he pleads not guilty, his trial is within three
weeks, unless he requests either a longer or shorter time. If he is detained his
sentencing is within two weeks of this trial or arraignment. Thei3e times are
possible only by careful scheduling and considerable cooperation among the
judicial i)ersonnel.
Individual CounseUing and Supportive Services. — While the principal non-
institutional method of rehabilitation is and will remain the one-to-one counsel-
ling of a skilled Probation Officer with a child or a parent, it is not a panacea,
and it often needs supportive services : devicps such as unpaid work, driver's
license suspension, monetary contribution to charity, to convince the child that
the public reacts to ^•iolations of its laws ; and counselling often needs programs
to attract the child's interest and motivate him into useful and instructive
activities. As an example, some local pilots have for several years taken on groups
of boys, teacliing them the gIam_onr of aerifil navigation, and incidentally teach-
ing them the need for mathematics and reading and perseverance and teamwork.
Groupwork. — We have also developed and are continually refining groupvvork
765
techniques, working with groups of children on either a discussion or an
encounter basis, or worldng with parents w'ho need sliills in raising small or
adolescent children or, with much promise, working and counselling with groups
of families.
Community Homes. — Children frequently need to be removed from their homes
for cooling off periods, for learning to live with others, for care for sjjecial
needs. There are never enough such homes, except for neglected or abandoned
infants. In addition to seeking out regular family style homos, we have developed
a few- homes for the unskilled, the unmotivated, the fearful-hostile children. Our
community has developed a chain of '"Home Away" group homes, where children
keep their jobs, attend their usual schools, but spend their evenings and w-eek-
ends in the encounter group milieu, deriving support and imderstanding from
their peers until they have the skill and strength to stand alone. The program
has been so successful that we have closed down one-third of our institutional
beds. A similar program for young adults, "Port" has been successful in Rochester,
Minnesota, and is about to open up in Minneapolis.
Institutions. — There are of course institutions . . . and I b^ilieve there always
will be : There are some children and adults who won't stay around for help :
they must be kept in security to ensure that they receive the treatment they.
and the public, need. There are some children and adults whose delinquent
attitudes are too infectious to leave them with the innocent. There are some
children and adults who are violent, or who are compulsive thieves, or who are
just plain lawless, and who must be locked up for public protection.
All institutions should be rehabilitative aud not merely warehouses or turnkey
operations. We have numerous different approaches in our county and state in-
stitutions, we are constantly trying to revamp old and devise new methods,
all in an attempt to individualize : to diagnose each child's needs and to put
together a treatment package which will meet those needs. The catalog of our
county and state institutional methods is long. We think we are at least as
effective as others around the country.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, may I thank you and the committee. The rehabili-
tation of the young is America's best hope for reducing crime and for increasing
responsible citizens. I am proud to be a part of the effort. I am proud that my
Congress is also involved.
We will take a recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon.
['\^niereupon. at 1 :05 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at
2 p.m., this same day.]
A-FTERN-OON" SeSSION
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
We are very much pleased to have with us this afternoon the di-
rector of the Florida Division of Youth Services, the Honorable
Oliver J. Keller, who has done a magnificent job in Florida and has
been commended by many knowledgeable of treatment in this field
throughout this country ; and of whom we in Florida are very proud.
We are \&ry grateful for Mr. Keller for coming and giving us, for
the benefit of the Congress and the country, his experience and his
counsel in this critical area relative to not only youth crime but crime
in general.
Mr. Lynch, will you please present the witness and question him.
Mr. Lyxcii. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
INIr. CiiAiRMAX. Mr. Keller, who is now involved in reforming and
modernizing the Florida system, was educated at Williams College,
received a master's degree from Northern Illinois University, and is
the former chairman of the Illinois Youth Commission. Mr. Keller
is an author of the book entitled "Halfway Houses." and as you know,
now serA^es as the director of the Florida Division of Youth Services.
Mr. Keller, I believe you have a prepared statement to present to
the committee. Would you do so, please.
95-158 — 73 — pt. 2—9
766
STATEMENT OF OLIVEE J. KELLER, DIRECTOR, STATE DIVISION OE
YOUTH SERVICES, TALLAHASSEE, ELA.
Mr. Kellek. I have submitted a prepared statement. I would prefer
to do what Judge Lindsey Arthur did this morning, if I could
Mr. Lynch. That is fine. Would you do that.
Mr. Keller [continuing]. And just talk informally for about 15
minutes, if I may.
[Mr. Keller's prepared statement appears at the end of his testi-
mony.]
Mr. Keller. I think the Florida youth corrections system is quite
unique in the country, in that the Governors of our State, two of them,
and the State legislature, have seen fit to develop a unified system of
youth corrections, prior to this land of organization being recom-
mended nationally.
Now, here in Washington, in January, the National Conference on
Criminal Justice met. One of their major recommendations was that
corrections be a State responsibility rather than a local one. The ra-
tionale simply is that corrections as a profession needs to be central-
ized and unified in a State system, and that the past experience of
fragmented county corrections programs has not been successful at
all.
So over the course of the last 5I/2 years, the Florida Division of
Youth Services has moved from a program of three training schools
to a program which encompasses the whole spectrum. By law, this
agency is responsible for the prevention of delinquency. We are also
responsible for the intake of all children to Florida's juvenile courts.
Thanks to Federal funds of a couple of years ago, matched with gen-
eral revenue money, the division of youth services was given respon-
sibility for juvenile probation and intake, as well as parole which it
had back in 1967.
The agency operates the State training schools. It operates com-
munity-based programs which we are particularly^ proud of, Mr.
Chairman : The halfway houses, the group foster homes for delinquent
children, the STAKT centers, the TRY centers, which I will explain
a little bit later on, and we also contract for service. Comparatively
recently, the legislature authorized our moving into the detention
field. The bill p^assed by the Florida Legislature at the 1972 session
mandated that, by 1978, detention of children awaiting court action
in Florida will be a State responsibility.
I think the kinds of questions that people want answered are : "Does
it work? Does it pay off? I think the answer is "Yes." Florida is a
boom State; it is one of the fastest growing States in the country.
Just in the time I have lived there, the population has increased by
a million people. We are over 7 million people now.
Our prison system is in serious trouble as far as overcrowding is
concerned. There is a crisis with respect to too many people for the
Florida prison system. In contrast, the youth corrections program,
thanks to the legislature's putting it all together, actually has empty
beds. Our training school populations are the lowest they have been
in years and years.
We are actually, through administrative transfer, taking young
men from the adult prison system. We are moving people from prisons
767
into the youth corrections agency administratively. The commitments
from the juvenile courts are down because we are diverting children
to other resources. The failure of young people on juvenile parole is
down.
Some of the things we are doing with intake and probation, I think,
are important to recognize. Before there was a consolidated State
system, some counties had probation and intake service. Others did
not. The poor counties often had nothing. AVlien the judge had a young
j)erson before him, he was virtually compelled in some instances to
send that youngster to a training school because there was no other
resource at hand.
Since the State system of intake and probation went through, every
county in Florida, regardless of its wealth, has the same level of intake,
probation, and parole service. We are able to divert as many young
people as we can from the official system.
I believe they should be kept out of our system wherever possible.
We are permitted to do "consent supervision," which means the young
person who has been in trouble, and his parents, agree with our intake
worker on a course of action that is planned. The parents and child
agree to go along with the plan for a limited period of time. The case
does not have to go before the court.
We are making considerable use of citizen — what shall I say — citizen
labor. These are people who volunteer. They are not paid. We have
over 800 people now who simply are adult friends to young people who
need that kind of relationship. The volunteer probation program,
where we assign a businessman, or a housewife, or a college student,
to work on a one-to-one basis with young jDeople in trouble has been
notably successful.
I think that in treating kids with problems with the law, we have
to recognize, Mr. Chairman, the need for a variety of programs. That
we now have in Florida. For young people who cannot live satisfac-
tory on probation, we are placing more and more of them in group
foster homes.
I would like to point out that you can find good people, reputable
people, who are willing to take somebody's problem child into their
home, if you look hard enough, if you screen them carefully, and if
you pay them enough so they do not lose financially themselves.
One of the things that Florida is known for nowadays, of course, is
community-based programs such as the halfway houses. A lialfway
house is simply a large i-esidence, with 20 or 25 yoimg people liv^ing in
what may have been a motel, or former nursing Jiome, or an apartment
building. They attend public school; they hold jobs; they live a rela-
tively normal life ; and it woiivs.
We don't have to put many of these serious delinquents into institu-
tions. They can be treated less expensively, and I believe more effec-
tively, in community programs.
I mentioned that we have a program called the start center and
a program called a try center. These are names taken from the
State of New York — from the New York Division for Youth. The
start center is simply a halfway house which has its own educa-
tional component, its own classrooms. Tliese programs are for young
people who are so far behind in the public school system tliey need a
special catchup effort.
768
So we liave a school projiram in the start centers. The try center,
anotlier name taken from the State of New York, is a program v»'here
kids still live at home, bnt appear early in the morning at the treat-
ment center. They are there all day, either undergoing group treat-
ment, which I will get iiito a bit later, or they are Avorking, or they
are going to school.
I should emphasize that community based corrections truly work.
We have 25 of these programs now going in Florida. Initially, the
reaction of the neighbors to the establishment of a halfway house or
start center was negative. People are highly anxious. They are afraid
their property values will be destroyed and that hoodlums will be re-
leased in their midst. It doesn't work out that way.
The programs have been sufficiently etl'ective — and I knock on
wood as I say it — that many neighbors who were previously hostile
are now our biggest boosters. I will give you an example.
x\t Fernandina Beach, a small town north of Jacksonville, the peo-
ple were extremely frightened when they heard we were starting a
program for delinquent boys. Within the period of a year, the towns-
people became so close and so fond of these young people, that, at the
town's expense, they built a one-room school building for our boys on
State property, gave it to the State. It was a ver}^ generous gesture
from people in that community.
Now, let me point to the cost. The cost per day in a community-based
program in Florida is considerably below that of an institution. We
are able to serve young people for $13 or $14 a day in a half-
way house program, as compared to $20 to $30 a day in an
institution. We are able to find "white elephant" pieces of property on
the real estate market, property that other people don't want. It could
be an abandoned church, it could be an apartment building, or old
nursing home. We can use it.
So far, all of our programs in the State are distressed pieces of
property that we have picked up and renovated and moved into rather
quickly. We avoided heavy capital outlay. I think the reason these
programs work is because of the quality of staff — young and energetic
people that have empathy for kids with problems.
I am a strong believer in groups. Mr. Chairman, this morning dur-
ing a break in the testimony, you described very well, I thought, the
program at the Red Wing School, of Minnesota, where kids help one
another in groups. I would be happy to have you substitute Florida for
Minnesota if you like. We, too, discovered that delinquent teenagers, if
treated with dignity and kindness can respond maturely; can make
reasonable, sensible decisions ; can face their life situations ; and try to
reckon with those situations.
I really mean this. We have so-called bad kids in halfway house
programs in our State. Thanks to this group approach, where these
kids get together for 90 minutes every day, 5 days a week, they are
some of the nicest people you will meet. They are open; they are
friendly ; in the local school system they are looked upon by the school
autliorities as some of the nicest members of the student body.
You have to see it to believe it. I think that, through this approach,
where the kids help one another, friendships develop; young people
who have only hurt one another now care for one another ; and they
can learn to make responsible decisions. I think that correctional ad-
769
ministrators are fighting a losing game unless they can change the at-
titudes of the people they work with.
The reason corporal punishment doesn't do any good is that it woi-ks
only so long as you are watching the individual. As long as you watch
him, he may bo"^f earful of being beaten. They used to use straps in our
schools in Florida. We don't use the strap at all any more ; we don't
need it. It is only when you are changing the person's ideas about him-
self and his attitudes that he is going to change his behavior. Then you
don't have to worry about watching him. The trouble with training
schools — and I won't belabor this because we have many people I think
are excellent employees, working very hard in our training schools —
is that our boys' schools are too large. If you are going to change people
who are delinquent or criminal, I tliink the change generally takes
place through personal relationships.
If you have a 16-year-old boy who is turned off from the world,
who looks upon himself as a loser, and looks upon tlie world as being
rotten, the only way he is ever going to be a reasonable, decent citizen,
I think, is if he establishes a relationship with someone he knows cares
about him and respects him. Then he can respect himself in turn.
The problem with large institutions is it is difficult to get that kmd
of personal relationship established. The schools are too big. You
don't have time for really knowing what someone is like.
Also, the larger a school is, the more you go by the system- It is the
system that becomes important rather than the young people who are
in that system. You begin to follow a routine. You go by formal Avrit-
ten regulations. This does not help change people.
Recognize, too, that in a large institution, the people with the best
training end up as administrators. They are the ones that are in tlie
front office. The people who really are "where the rubber meets the
road," who are where the kids are, are often people Avho are inade-
quately paid, possibly $5,500 a year or $6,000 a year, such as cottage
fathers. Some of these people, I want to point out, are excellent in
spite of the terrible pay, but there are other cottage parents in such
institutions who could care less about the young people they are
supervising.
I think the role of the training schools in our country in the future
is that they should be kept small. By that, I mean 100 or 150 young peo-
ple at the most. They should be reserved only for a very small percent-
age of young people who demonstrate they cannot live in the com-
munity. I believe that TO to 80 percent of the young people are com-
mitted as delinquent kids can "make it" satisfactorily in a comnnmity-
based program. There are some that bomb out. They run away; steal
a car. "\Vlien the community won't tolerate their presence at that half-
way house, you have to move them. But they are a comparatively
small percentage.
I would like to see the day when our training schools are truly in-
tensive treatment institutions for a very small percentage of children.
Recognize that these institutions, if they are to be intensive treatment
experiences, will be expensive. The training school is like a small city.
You have residences; you have administrative headquarter^;; and you
generally have a chapel, a school, maintenance shops, and sewage sys-
tems. It is like a little' village. To keep all of that going, and at the same
770
time have as good treatment program as it should be, it has to ])e an
expensive operation.
We have an institution. Congressmen, in Florida, vhich we are
proud of. We took a gamble on it. It is called the Howell Lancaster
Young Development Center. It is our institution for our "mess-ups."
kids that are our "worst kids. Tlie only way a young person gets to this
place is to fail in lanother program. But it is a coeducational school,
and it is an open school. There are no fences or gun towers. Kids wear
their own clothes. In other words, it is not a uniform-type operation.
We have only 16 boys or girls to a cottage. It is one of our best
facilities, and yet it is supposed to be for the worst kids we have.
^Vliy does it work? Because the kids are treated as human beings,
because of the groups, which I think are crucial to changing of de-
linquent behavior, and because the place is small. The staff and young
people all know each other well.
Chairman Pepper. Are they locked in ?
Mr. Keeler. No, thev are iust there. And we have very few run-
aways from that facility. Let's address the questions of sex activity,
Mr. Chairman, because people say we must be crazy putting delin-
ouont kids, boys and girls, together in the same institution. We have
discovered the kids act more like ordinary Idds on the outside. We
occasionally have some sex problems. I would be lying to you if I
told you every now and then we don't have a problem. I don't think
we have as many problems as the ordinary public school does, the
average high school does.
And through the groups, kids respect one another. There is a feel-
ing of concern nnd respect for one another which is worth seeing.
On the issue of staff, I am not hung up on the idea of Ph. D.'s and
M.S.W. degrees. My own feeling is that correctional administrators
should search hard to jjet people who like other humaii beincrs. One
of our most successful halfway house superintendents is an ex-alco-
holic, whom I met at Sumter Prison.
He wasn't in prison, but he was an AA from the outside, talking
to AA convicts at Sumter. This man is a black man with 2 years of
college. He is one of our best halfway house superintendents. He not
onlv has irreat concern for the young people, but they know it. They
know he reall v cares about what happens to them.
Cliairman Pepper. Mv. Keller, may I interrupt you. When I visited
Red Wins:. Minn., JSIr. Olson, who is in charge there, told our com-
mittee that when he took over under the new program. I think thev
let all of the psvchologists and psychiatrists go but one. maybe one
of each, I don't know. And they did iust what you said. They put in
charge neople that know how to handle boys. It is a boys' school. And
thev said the best r^an thev had on the campus was the fellow who
ran the shoeshon. He could do more with those boys.
You know, we have Art Barker nt Fort Lauderdale, who is in fharg-e
of Seed, some of our members here visited the Seed, he is a reformed
alcoholic. That fellow has a knack of some kind or other for dealing
wi*"^" bovs or .■"■iris. He i"^ a jrenius.
Chairman Pepper. "WHiat you are saying is you don't ciire about their
technoloo-ioal qualifirations, but you want people who know how to
deal with boys and girls.
/ /I
Mr. Keller. Mr. ChaiiTnan, I say the first thing you look for is
^Yarmth for other people. If j-ou can couple that with a college degree,
with some knowledge in the behavioral sciences, that is a great big
important plus. I am not laiocking the professions.
Chairman Pepper. Of course. I am not, either.
Mr. Keller. But what I am saying is th.at I think we can use those
people to train group leaders. INIy own discovery has been that the
State simply cannot atTord psj'chiatrists, in numbers, for these train-
ing schools. I really don't believe most delinquents need that. I believe
young people who really are in bad shaj^e mentally should be treated
by a competent psychiatrist through contract. If the young person
needs psycliiatric help, then contract for it. The administration can
employ help from the outside. 'My own experience with some institu-
tional doctors has not been too good. The State often doesn't
pay very well, and, consequently, it gets what it pays for.
I think one of the stumbling blocks correctional administrators run
into is — unfortunately, although I would like to employ more people
like the man I described at our halfway house in Tallahassee— the
tendency of government is not to be flexible. As pay grades and job
specifications are set, tliese are almost invariably tied in with advance
degrees. You don't get paid well unless you have a master's in some-
thing or other.
That is too bad, I think. I think there needs to be greater flexibility.
yir. Raxgel. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Rangel.
^Ir. Raxgel. I share your concerns. I don't laiow how closely you
are related to the drug rehab programs, but most of the communities
felt that the victim did not really need full-time psychiatrists and
psychologists, or social workers, but rather people that had an under-
standing of the problem, the result being that many of the programs
merely justified they had to be approved because they were staffed by
former addicts.
I recognize that you have to have more flexibility in the civil service
svstem. but to sfet the tvpe of talents that vou and the chairman de-
scribed, to get this type of talent and dedication, what would you
think is needed bv agencies such as Amours?
Mr. Keller. I think the job specs should be written in such a way
that, somehow or other, they would take into account the individual's
past experience, what he had to offer. It might include street experi-
ence. Congressman, other than academic steps. Very often, you loiow,
coming back to the academic business, there are people that are super-
bright, who shouldn't be working with human beings. They don't
help people.
They can knock off a Ph. D., but they are not helper's. And then
there are other people who can move through the academic world, but
don't know what the bricks are like. They have never been there. They
don't know what the hard life is like. It is ridiculous for this kind
of middle-class person to be telling the individual in trouble how it
is.
Mr. Raxgel. I know. We have the same type of public servant that
just doesn't like people but he has degrees. On the other hand, my
problem is that the person that just comes from the street, he is hired
by people who come from the street and we really don't know whether
772
lie is a part of the problem, rather than someone who can assist in the
solution of it.
The answer is someplace in the middle. I was just wondering if
3'ou did have the flexibility that you want.
Mr. Keller. We are getting less flexible, I am afraid. As the job
specs are specifically laid out in our State, it is going to be harder
and harder to employ people like the man I described.
Mr. Rangel. And like ^'Ir. Barker, who the chairman described.
Have you had a chance to look at the Seed program ?
Mr. Keller. I know Mr. Barker and I have been to the Seed for a
visit. We have quite a few children in that program.
Another stumbling bloclv, if I may move to it, that concerns me in
the people-helping field is the requirements of the Federal Wage and
Housing Act. These are being enforced very strictly in our State.
Obviously, the reason they are there is because people were abused
in the past. People were worked fantastic hours, were not compensated
for it, and weren't given time off. The sad thing now is that there are
people who would like to work with kids, but when their 8-hour day
is up, they have to leave. They have to get out. The only way we can
avoid that in our State is to get the pay grades at a high enough level
so they then become "exempt." Over a certain pay range, the person
can work at night or any time. But there are lower echelon people who
really enjoy working with kids. They have got to leave at the end of
their stint. They may be in the middle of a conversation with a kid.
The rule is enforced so rigidly that the people Avho will question the
employees say, "Did you hang around for 10 minutes after working
period?"
Mr. Rangel. Who enforces it; the union? The shop superin-
tendents ?
Mr. Keller. There is a gentleman with the division of personnel
whose job it is to go around and find out from people what their work-
ing hours are.
Mr. Rangel. Can't they come back as volunteers ?
Mr. Keller. No : unless it is in a totally different field. For example,
a secretary could offer to be a Boy Scout leader, but a house parent
cannot. A house parent might want to take kids to a ball game, because
he would like to see the ball game himself. But he can't, he is on over-
time if he makes that trip.
I am strong for contracting for service. We are doing some of this
now in Florida. We have four marine institutes that are under con-
tract. This is where we put boys on boats. Florida doesn't really have
any mountains, so we can't have an "outward bound" experience.
Chairman Pepper. Execuse me. Mr. Keller, I am surprised that you
are so uninformed of our geography. We have mountains that tower
up into the sky as much as 300 feet.
Mr. Keller. They are beautiful hills.
The marine institutes are not-for-profit corporations. We contract
with them to put boys on these boats, where they learn ship handling,
where they learn scuba diving. If they don't know how to swim, they
teach them how to swim, obviously. Also repair. When these kids get
through with this course they are very much in demand as far as jobs
in our State are concerned, because we have so much maritime business.
773
This is the kind of proo;rain that really turns on an adolescent l^oy.
Just being on a boat, ^oing out to sea, for example, on a yawl or ketch.
We also contracted with the Jack and Ruth Eckerd Foundation.
This is a not-for-profit foundation, which operates a "wilderness
camp."' They have two wilderness camps now, the Eckerd Foundation
does. The State is going to have a camp created for delinquent boys
in west Florida, over near Pensacola, in the Black Water Eiver State
Forest. They have from 400 to TOO acres of land. It is really w;ild
land. The ceiitral camps consist only of a small administration build-
ing ancl the dining hall, w^hicli is known as the Chuck Wagon, and
tliere are some showers and toilets there. But the rest of the camp is
all in the wilderness.
There will be a camp of 50 kids, five subunits, with no buildings in
the subunits ; nothing but tents which the kids make themselves. If it
rains, they have to fix it. Half of their meals each week are prepared
out there In the wilderness. They cook their OAvn food, plan their own
menu, and the other half of the week they come up to the Chuck Waffon.
You don't want kids to do nothing but cook and prepare food all of
tiie time.
But it is quite an experience. I have seen kids who failed in every-
thing else really turned on by their wilderness camp experience. They
go on canoe trips, pack trips. The school program is related to the
camping experience. That is, the boys determine we need to order so
much food ; let's figure out how much food we need. How many of us
are there? How many loaves of bread do we get, and that kind of
thing. As far as English is concerned, that would be done in planning
for the trip they aregoing to take. After they have taken the trip — for
instance, coming down the Mississippi on a raft — they write up what
their experience has been. They write back to the people they met on
the trip.
We also have contracts with Florida Atlantic University and the
University of West Florida. These universities work with our boys on
the training school campus. We actually have branch universities
going at our institutions. And, at Okeechobee, just north of the lake,
there are 60 young men and women from Florida Atlantic University
living in trailers at the boys' school. They go to class right on the
grounds of our boys' school.
Twenty hours a week, the university students are devoting them-
selves to their own academic work. The other 20 hours, they work for
us as teacher aides and recreation aides. And I think it serves two pur-
poses : One, these university students are young enough they can really
relate to the teenage kids in that training school. There is a difference
of maybe 4 to 6 years between the students and the kids in the training
school. Then, and most important, we are developing future teachers
who have skills in working with delinquent kids, and are not afraid
of these behavioral problems wdien tliey find them in the public
schools.
We need to do a lot of this kind of thing in conjunction with public
schools.
774
The newest program tlie State has moved into is detention. Mr.
Chairman, we in Miami are operating Yonth Hall now, and we are also
in the Panhandle. The panhandle of Florida runs from Pensacola al-
most over to Tallahassee.
But the 10 counties in the panhandle are served by only two
detention centers. We have a system of open, nonsecure shelter homes,
and a system of home detention, which allows kids to go back to their
own homes under intense supervision. This is a program that was
started by a gentleman named Paul Keve, who used to work for
Judge Lindsay Arthur.
This program in Florida follows a State plan worked out by the
John Howard Association. Mr. Rowan, of course, will testify later.
What Rovv'an is saying to the State of Florida is :
You don't have to build any more lockups. You don't need it. Use the existing
two secure detention centers that the counties have, and, instead of building any
more lockups, use open, foster-type homes for kids who don't need to be locked up.
Then, also, send kids home, but make sure they are closely super-
vised by home detention workers.
Here is how that works. You don't look for a guy with a fancy
degree. You find somebody whose references check out okay; maybe
just a guy with a grade school or high school education; that's all.
You give him the responsibility for making sure that five boys, who
have to come before the court, stay out of trouble until their court date.
Now, it makes sense, considering the adult system. In the adult courts
a really bad hoodlum can be bonded out until his court date simply
because he can come up with bail bond. He can pay the dough. Doesn't
it make sense in the juvenile field to do something better? Let the
delinquent kid — or you think he is a delinquent kid because he is
coming up before the court — go home, but have him supervised every
day by an individual who isn't paid a big fat salary, but whose job it
is to be sure his five kids keep the court date, and stay out of trouble.
The cost of this State detention system, according to INIr. Rowan, is
going to be just about what the counties that are presently operating
detention centers are now spending. Remember, there are 20 counties
out of 67 counties in Florida that have detention centers. These are
lockups. What the counties are presently spending to keep kids in
those 20 loclaips is what the John Howard Association believes the
State of Florida can spend to operate an entire State system where
you minimize lockup ; you allow kids to be under home detention, or in
open shelter homes.
Mr. Rangel. Mr. Keller, what happens to those people who are
employed mider the present system ?
Mr. Keller. Congressman, they transfer to the State system. This
is what happened when the title IV-A moneys and LEAA moneys of
2 years ago were matched with State general revenue, when we took
over what had been the county responsibility of intake and probation.
The State operates all of that in Florida. Those people came over to
the State system. On the whole, they worked out well.
Believe it or not, we only dismissed one individual on a morals
charge. Some are better than others, ob-^nously, but we recognized when
we moved into that area that we weren't going to fire people. We
actually couldn't. They gave us a 6-months' period when we could
unload people if they were bad, but vre found most people were pretty
decent.
Mr. Eangel. But you are talking of hiring a different type of person,
say, for the custodial care, to insure that the alleged juvenile delin-
quent gets back to court.
Mr. Keller. That is right.
Mr. Eaxgel. You wouldn't have any civil service status job for
someone like that ?
Mr. Keller. You see, what has existed so far, and this is true
throughout our country, is just lockup care. We are going to continue
to operate most of those security detention centers, or lockups, and the
people who are working there will continue to work there. "Wliat we
are saying, in other words, is that we agree witli Mr. Rowan of the
John Howard Association. We don't have to build a lot of lockups
elsewhere.
What we are going to do, instead, is to pay Mr. and Mrs. McDonald
to take tliree to five kids into their home, shelter cases, until their
court date. We will pay McDonald $7 or $8 a day per child. Also, Mr.
Lynch, who has been recruited now as a home detention worker would
have the responsibility of just making sure the five kids stay out of
trouble.
So these programs obviously are far less costly than lockup care.
Lockup care costs about $27 a day per child. You have to have 24-
hour supervision and 8-hour shifts, and so on. This other nonsecure
way costs us about $7 per day per child.
The next area that I am concerned about, and want you to hear
about, is that stail training efforts for agencies of our type are often
neglected. It is very hard to sell legislatures on giving money for staff
training. A lot of people don't understand it. We are asking for a little
bit more than 1 percent of our budget for staff development. I think
that staff training is crucial, if we are going to do the job right,
because we are a big agency now in Florida.
We have 3,000 persons working for this agency. We process 110,000
kids a year through intake. We have 16,000 children on probation
or parole. It is crucial that the people who work with this agency
understand the philosophy of the agency, and that they are motivated,
and feel they are a part of a growing, vital, energetic system. Staff
training is crucial, I think.
Also, the whole business of public education. What we are doing
right now and what this committee is doing are crucial. The public
really needs to hear what your deliberations result in, because so many
people still think the iron fist is the way to deal with troublemakers.
They don't realize the traditional method of dealing with offenders
produces a more dangerous offender.
You Congressmen have heard firsthand the testimony about what
happens to people in prisons and large institutions. You know that
when those people come out of that kind of a prison experience they
may be truly vicious. I have talked to convicts who said they would
kill a guy for a pack of cigarettes, if a person got in their way. They
had gotten to the point that other people's lives just didn't amount
to that much.
I think we have a public education job to do, which is to make
clear to the public why people do become offenders, what steps should
776
be taken to correct them, and then emphasize the importance of citi-
zen involvement. I am a former broadcaster who didn't get into this
field as a so-called professional until I was 37. I used to work as a
volunteer with kids that were in trouble. I Imow I helped some kids.
I did it, because they knew I cared about them as people. There are
people willing: to work with kids all over this country if they are re-
cruited and plugged in. There are all kinds of such people.
One of the most effective volunteers we have in Florida is a police
officer in the Clearwater area who not only took charge of a 13-year-
old boy who was getting in trouble, but ended up being a substitute
father for all of the children in that family. This sounds like one
of those soap opera things, but it is really true.
The mother of these children died of a hideous cancer. She was
deserted by her husband. She had five children. Before she died, she
wrote the local chief of police — and it appeared in the newspaper— a
letter about what this policeman had done for her and her children by
substituting for the father that wasn't there.
Agencies like ours, if they are ever to do anything except slam the
door when the liorse is gone, must do more in public relations. We need
to work closely with public education. I am an old school board mem-
ber. I am about to slam the public schools, since I was a part of the
public education system for 6 years. The school systems contribute
heavily to the delinquency.
I saw a newspaper cartoon which was based on the Mad Queen in
Alice in Wonderland. It showed the queen with her crazy hat on, and
she was saying, "If you don't go to school, I'll kick you out." "Which,
of course, is what we do in this country. If the kid is a truant, we send
him from school. Kids are driven further and further away from the
system and more and more toward the criminal setup.
We need to do a lot of work with the schools.
Finally, the legislators in our State asked me: "How good are your
programs." This year, for the first time, we did com.e up with some
very gross information, just gross facts; that is, commitments are
down; failure rate is down; and so on. But, as far as any real hard
evaluation of programs is concerned, that is another thing that is
tough to get money for it.
We even made it our No. 1 budget priority a couple of years ago.
We said we really needed to get a few people in the research bureau
so we could actually demonstrate whether we were doing a good job
or not. But it is hard to sell people on that. You can get money for a
now sewage system in an institution, or fen* new roofs, or halfwav
houses, too, because our legislators believe in that, but things like staff
development, or educating the public as to their responsibility in the
whole delinquency scene, or evaluation of programs, it is tough to get
money for those.
Just to conclude: We were using title IV-A money until recently—
title IV-A of the Social Security Act. It was great while it lasted.
We had $10 million coming from title IV-A, which we were using
because so many of our j^oung people are the children of families on
public assistance. The intake-probation program, which is now a State
operation, and which guarantees service to kids no matter where they
live in our State, would not have been possible if it had not been for
the Federal money.
777
The thing thcat upsets people like myself is that the money has dried
up. Title IV-A is almost a lost cause, and the stuff you have to
go through to get any of it now bogs you down in paper.
Congressman, I am concerned that they changed the rules in the
middle of our game, wiiich is our fiscal year. Under the old guide-
lines our program of counseling kids on probation and parole was
eligible. We were receiving the money. Then they changed the rules
and decided the old guidelines would no longer continue. That really
throws State agencies a curve, because then you are right in the middle
of the fiscal year. "Wliat are you going to do ?
There is a crisis now in Florida with regard to the social service
agencies. People say : "Well, after all, the State has some money over
here. Why don't they use that ?" One reason is that, obviously, different
people in the State have ideas as to where the money should go. The
great thing about the IV-A money, while it lasted, was tliat it was
money earmarked for social security programs. We were able to use
that money for a period of time.
I think the two pressing issues that have bothered the American
public have been the war, which is now behind us, or I guess it is
behind us : and the other issue has been crime in our country.
If crime is now the No. 1 concern to the public, which I think it is,
I would ask that Congress think very seriously about the kind of
money needed to do the job j^roperly. We need to do so much in the
prevention area.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Keller, you were talking about title IV-A money.
That money was in fact a limited fund, isn't that correct; the way it
formerly worked it was on a matching basis, dollar for dollar, no
ceiling ?
Mr. Keller. There was no ceiling. And I am not saying there should
not be a ceiling on it. I think all of a sudden the Office of Management
and Budget realized there was an open faucet.
Mr. Lynch. How m.uch money did your department receive?
Mr. Keller. We got $10 million from that source in 1 year. All sorts
of good things happened. Now, of course, with that dried up, we have
tried to reach here and there and to get the State legislature to keep
the programs afloat.
Mr. Lynch. You mentioned that it is difficult to get the public to
think about, or the public is unaware that, programs such as commun-
ity based programs are more successful, are less expensive, than in-
stitutionalizing in prison kinds of settings.
To what extent do vou, as a correctional administrator, advertise
that fact?
Mr. IvELLER. Well, Mr. Lynch, I talk it up all the time. Any time I
get interviewed, or have a chance to speak to a group, I am generally
carrying the same message.
We have a bureau of community services which is supposed to be
responsible for the whole State as far as prevention efforts are con-
cerned. It has five people in it. They do a whale of a job with five
people.
They are the ones that got the volunteer program going in conjunc-
tion with our probation-parole people. They are out there recruiting
public interest and public participation. I think the more and more
people we can work into the system, such as the university students
778
who now have firsthand knowledge of what delinquents are like, you
realize the delinquent is generally not an ogre. He is generally a kid
who looks upon himself as a failure. A kid who doesn't like himself.
Mr. Lynch. The reason I asked that question is this morning the
chairman of tliis committee indicated he was somewhat perplexed by
the fact that during this week of hearings, when we were talking of
juvenile corrections and about new approaches, more successful ones,
a. very small number of gentlemen from the press showed up, whereas
last v\^eek when we were talking about police programs, the room was
relatively crowded. I take it, in a sense, you are saying the same thing.
Is it, in your judgment, the fact this is not newsworthy or it is not
exciting enough for the public to be interested ?
IVIr, Keller. Mr. Lynch, I am the son of an old newspaperman, so
I am going to stick up for the press. I really think the press generally
finds corrections a field of real interest. They give us good coverage in
Florida. And it isn't something we are seeking for. We will get tele-
phone calls from AP and LTPI about our programs, and from Martin
Dyckman, who has done tremendous things in corrections in Florida.
We have a number of newspaper people who realize people do read
alx)ut corrections.
Before I got into this business, I found the whole business of prisons,
training schools, and jails kind of morbidly exciting. There is press
copy there.
Mr. Kangel. Is this reflected in the legislative priorities ? I served in
the New York State Legislature and it is my opinion that U.S. Con-
gressmen are politically insulated from direct voter reaction on na-
tional priorities, since our jurisdiction is so broad. I would hate to see
what would happen to correctional programs in New York State where
we have the rural areas controlling the political influence on priorities.
And unless Florida is a difi'erent kind of State, the major problem we
have, whether we are dealing with powerless children, or powerless
people, or powerless prisoners, or powerless senior citizens, is what
you pointed out; that is, legislators relating to the priorities set by
those that are politically powerful. So notwithstanding the interest
indicated by the press in Florida, what effect does this have on your
State legislative body when they determine their budgetary priorities ?
Mr. Keller. I agree with that. I think the press is important, but I
think the reason things have happened in Florida is because — ^this
sounds like "butter" — we really have a first-class legislature, on the
whole. We do have people in that legislature who want something to
happen. There have been a few key legislators who have made it their
particular crusade to improve the corrections picture. That is their bag.
And they happen to be powerful legislators.
One, specifically, is State Senator Louis de la Parte from Tampa,
who has been chairman of the senate health and rehabilitative services
committee, chairman of the senate ways and means committee, and is
now president pro tem of the Florida Senate. He is not only respected
by his colleagues, but he is very persuasive. And, if you have a few
people in the legislature that want change to come, it will come.
You have to have a champion ; that is true.
Mr. Rangel. Assuming that your Governor doesn't impound. As-
suming you have no impoundment power problems in Florida from the
executive branch
779
Mr. Keller. Frankly, the Governor has been for the detention pro-
gram. Wlien the State\letention bill was passed a year ago, and we
thought Federal funds would be available, there didn't seem to be any
problem.
The Governor feels there is now a problem about expanding deten-
tion over where it presently stands, which is in Dade County and the
10 counties in the Panhandle. That money was authorized a year ago.
He is wanting to hold the money at that stage. But Senator de la Parte
is saying : "We are going to go ahead and have it now." He is pushing
it. The senator is pushing to 2:0 aliead anyway.
:Mr. Lynch. Senator de la Parte's bill would, in effect, do away with
correctional institutions by 1978 ?
Mr. Keller. No ; first of all, the legislature passed a bill authorizing
State assumption of responsibility for juvenile detention to be com-
pleted by 1978. De la Parte has introduced two bills, the first to pro-
hibit the placement of any young person in jail after December 31,
and concomitant with that is the other bill, which says, effective on
December 31, 1973, the counties are out of the detention business.
The State will operate a network of detention facilities tied together
with automobiles. It will consist of those things we talked about : the
existins: lockups, shelter-type care, and home detention care.
Mr. Lynch. Do you support the concepts of those bills ?
]Mr. Keller. Absolutely, I sure do.
Mr. Lynch. You indicated. Mr. Keller, that your department proc-
essed on an intake basis 110,000 youngsters a year. Will you explain
what you mean by that ? '\^Tiat is intake ?
]Mr.' Keller. The policeman takes the child who has been arrested,
and the school authority takes the child who is creating problems in
school, to somebody. Parents take their problem child to somebody.
The problem child, himself, might even walk in to somebody. That
somebody is an intake worker, who has a very heavy responsibility to
decide wliether the matter can be handled informally, or whether a
petition needs to be filed.
If a petition is filed, if the intake worker feels a petition should be
filed, it goes to the State's attorney's office, which would move ahead,
and bring it before the court.
Mr. Lynch. So the 110,000 are not all people who have been referred
by any element of the criminal justice system? It could be family,
friends, schools, what have you, at that stage ?
]Mr. Keller. INIost all our referrals, frankly, are by the police. I recall
this, because I presented the charts to the appropriations committees
the other day. About 70 to 80 percent of our referrals are police
referrals.
Mr. Lynch. You also indicated that you have approximately 16,000
juveniles under probation or parole.
INIr. Keller. That is right.
Mr. Lynch. "\^Tiat happens to the difference between the 110,000 and
the 16,000?
Mr. Keller. Well, many of them are handled informally or dis-
missed.
Mr. Lynch. What would an informal handling include ?
Mr. Keller. Well, possibly consent supervision, which means the
young person and the parents agree they will make restitution, or the
780
child will behave. Suppose he has been bothering- a neighbor. That was
the reason for the arrest. They agree he won't go there anymore. He
will leave those people alone. And it can be handled that simply.
We want to keep as many young people as possible out of the official
system.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Keller, you also indicated that one of the reasons
that these new small groups worked so well, is because of the influence
that the kids exert upon one another, peer pressure of some kind, peer
confrontation and what have you.
I suppose it is a commonly held view one reason a lot of kids get
into a lot of trouble is the same reason ?
Mr. Keller. That is right.
Mr. Lynch. As someone with expertise in this field, how do you
explain that ? What happens ? Why is there the change ?
Mr. Kellee. Well, starting one of these halfway houses from scratch
is tough, because the group leader, who is the adult, has to take a group
which is delinquent, and in trouble. He has to turn them around so
that they no longer are interested in stealing, using drugs, and so on.
But the good group leader can do it. Once he gets the group turned
around, and has this nucleus that has changed, then he can feed in
more delinquents. Not all at once. It is a controlled process. You had
better feed in only one or two kids a week into a halfway house pro-
gram because it is important to maintain the "culture," which is the
expression they use.
If you have a halfway house program with a positive, healthy cul-
ture, the delinquent kid comes into it, and his first attitude is he has
got himself an "easy go." He didn't get sent away to a training school,
and he figures he is going to con his way through the program.
But the other kids won't let him con his way. They are like him.
They have been there, too. ^"\Tien he begins to lie and blame other
people for everything, they say, "Wait a minute man. We are not
going to accept that."
Mr. Lynch. So a healthy adult model acts as something of a catalyst ?
Mr. Keller. That is right. When we began Criswell House,* our
first halfway house program, it was tough to get the culture going.
But when it got going — and it has been going for years^ — it became
well accepted in the community. The kids are part of Tallahassee's
life. They are active in the community and go to school there. When
we start a new program we may take a kid from Criswell House and
add him to the staff. He lielps to start the new program.
We call them "seeders." You take some kids that really have changed.
They convince other delinquents they can change.
Mr. Lynch. How do you actually go about selecting the appropriate
kind of person to be a group leader, a foster parent? What criteria
do you really use ?
Mr. Keller. The Congressman asked me questions somewhat like
that a few minutes ago. Here is my chance to answer it.
I think what you do is get the right guy for what I call the bureau
chief. Congressman, you are from iS"ew York, are you not ?
Mr. Eangel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Keller. We raided your State. Your State has been wonderful
to us. Milton Luger, who is a personal friend of mine, and, I think,
one of the great people in the collections field, helped us get started
95-158— 73— pt. 2 10
781
in Florida by allowing me to raid your system and take Richard Rachin
from your Shepherd House program in Manhattan. Rachin, in my
book, is one of the top people in the country in doing groups. Rachin
knows whom to pick. He knows who it is that relates with kids. It
can be an exconvict. It doesn't have to be. It could bo an exconvict,
an MSW, a psychologist, an alcoholic. You build a team.
Mr. Lynch. There is no objective test, in other Avords.
]Mr. Keller. That is right. There is no objective test. Maybe there
will be someday, although I have yet to see the objective test you
can count on that much.
Mr. Lynch. Your marine institutes it seems to me are counterparts
of our outward bound programs.
Mr. Keller. Right.
Mr. Lynch. What kind of kids do you send into that program ?
Mr. Kelij^r. Serious delinquents. Our halfway house programs take
kids, just like the ones that go into the institutions, and this is true
of the marine institutes program, too.
Mr. Lynch. When you say serious delinquents, these would be
children •
]\Ir. Keller. Robberj^, breaking and entering, car theft, assault.
Mr. Lynch. How many children do you have in Florida who are
incarcerated ?
Mr. Keller. In institutions now, we have about 1,100. We have 300
in halfway house programs. That will raise to 500 by this fiscal year.
We have 50 young people in grouj:) foster homes, which we need to
expand. Foster care really works. It is one of the least expensive of
the residential programs.
Mr. Lynch. And the institutions in which the 1,100 young people
are incarcerated, is it appropriate to call that incarceration, or are
these holding institutions ?
Mr. Keller. I won't play with words. We don't like the word "in-
carcerated," because I think that if you were to visit the programs,
they wouldn't give you that feeling. They look like regular school
campuses. There aren't any fences or anything.
Mr. Lynch. Is it your intention to maintain those institutions ?
Mr. Keller. What I would like to do is gradually reduce the train-
ing schools so that eventually Florida may have only one or two in-
stitutions. These institutions would have small populations of 100 to
150. 1 think the legislature in Florida will have to recognize it will be
costly in such programs, because if you are really going to operate an
institution that has special vocational training and has a connection
with the University of Florida's J. Hillis Miller Medical Center, it is
a lot more expensive than a community program.
Mr. Lynch. Have you comparable data on recidivism rates, institu-
tions as opposed to halfway houses?
Mr. Keller. We discovered at the halfway houses that they do as
well as at the institutions. Where the halfway house shows benefits is
that the cost per day is less. Also, there is virtually no capital con-
struction. You sim]:)ly rent a place, or buy it far cheaper tlian you
could build something nowadays. Young people then move through
the program quicker than in a training school. Our average length
of stay in an institution is 7 to 8 months. The average length of stay
in the halfway house program is onl}^ 4 months.
782
Let me speak, if I may, about the issue of recidivism. The jucl^e
earlier mentioned that recidivism, of course, is going to continue to be
one of the chief measures of judging a correctional program. In some
ways it is unfair. I told Mr. Pepper that I have seen kids leave one
of our halfway house programs who really wanted to do right. The
guy had really a new set oi values, but if he has nothing to return to
except, the same rotten situation he had come from, he returns to delin-
quency. We couldn't put him somewhere else. The time was up for him
to leave, so back he went to a ghetto in St. Petersburg, or Miami, or
Jacksonville, or Tampa. He was exposed to all of the old forces again.
Maybe he still got hassled. The policeman who may have been his
enemy before is again on him. Maybe when he tried to go back to
school, the attitucte there was: "We don't Avant you here." That is
why it is so important to get the public educated. For example, if peo-
ple look upon the marine institutes as coddling kids — "My kid doesn't
get out on a Iwat, and have all that fmi and so forth" — if people see
it that way, I think they are mistaken.
Because, if I can take a kid who is turned off of the world, and
turn him around so that he sees himself in a new light, so that he
has some positive things he can be proud of, then the cost is worth it.
Aiid the success rate, by the way, for the marine institutes is still ex-
cellent. Their kids really do seem to stay out of trouble.
Mr. Ltxch. Better than the halfway houses ?
Mr. Kellek. They are somewhat more selective in the kids that go
into them — certain intelligence level, and so on.
Mr. Lynch. It is more difficult to be placed in the marine institutes ;
is that what you are saying ?
Mr. Keller. There" are only four of them. Boys also have to live
in that area. They are not residential programs. There is one near
Ft. Lauderdale. You have to live around Ft. Lauderdale to get in that
program. Boys live at home and go to the institute during the day.
Mr. Lynch. Are they under your auspices through private
contractors ?
Mr. Keller. It is an outfit known as the Florida Marine Institute.
We have a contract with them.
Mr. Lynch. Plow about the success rate in the wilderness camps ?
Mr. Keller. We are just begimiing that program. The reason we
did it was that the Eckerd people earlier took kids into their camp
without any payment from us. They were our probationers. The Eckerd
Foundation accepted them into the camp just to be nice. We don't
find that very often.
We don't "find very many private outfits that want to handle delin-
quent kids. They are scared of them. The Eckerd people are not.
We said, "Look, you are doing a good job with our kids, and you
are actually taking them 'for free.' Suppose we create a camp for you
in west Florida, and we will pay you to run it."
Mr. Lynch. "\'\niat does it cost you ?
Mr. Heller. About the same thing as a halfway house, about $13
a day.
Mr. Lynch. "Wliich is still approximately half, or less than half, the
cost of institutionalizing the child?
Mr. Keller. That is right.
Mr. Lynch. No further questions.
783
Chairman Peppek. Mr. McDonald.
]\Ir. McDonald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Keller, you mentioned there were 1,100 juveniles in institu-
tions, 300 in halfway houses, and 50 in ci-oup foster homes. Is that the
total amount of juveniles in your DYS jurisdiction, approximately
1,450?
Mr. Keller. Don't forget the 16,000 on probation and parole.
Mr. McDoxALD. I am sorrv. What is the upper age limit under
DYS ?
Mr. Keller. 21.
jNlr. McDonald. How many juveniles between the ages of IT and
•21 are committed in adult prisons in Florida ?
Mr. Keller. Mr. McDonald, I don't have a figure on that. In our
State, if you are over 17 and you commit a crime, you are in the adult
system.
Now. we do have 17-year-olds who were sent to the prison system. I
mentioned the Florida administrative transfer. If the prison system
feels this young person ought to be out of prison, because of what can
happen to a person of that age in prison, they send him to us admin-
istratively. We get together and arrange transfers which go on all
the time.
There is talk of changing the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to 18 ;
to move it up a year. I am in favor of that. That is going to have an
impact on us in sheer numbers. That 17-year-old group is a major part
of tlie people in difFicult3\ It is a high commitment age. We are inter-
ested in taking these. Also, I am in favor of the youthful offender bill,
which would allow us to even take people up to the age of 21.
]Mr. McDonald. But as it stands now in Florida, you can't initiate
bringing that youthful offender from an adult prison to, say, Criswell
House ?
]Mr. Keller. The director of the prison system and I work pretty
closely. He told us he would give us the names of all 17-year-olds he
had in the system. We could interview those boys. If we thought we
could work with them, he would be glad to hand them over to us.
Our prison system is overcrowded.
Mr. McDonald. Is Criswell rated as one of the best halfway homes
in Florida?
]Mr. Keller. I think it is.
^Ir. ]\IcDonald. It occurred to me when I toured it, people mention
it cA-ery day, every week, many people are being brought through
Criswell House. Is Criswell House the best because it is in Tallahas-
see ? Are there other houses throughout the State that equal Criswell
House ?
Mr. Keller. Yes. Criswell House was put there deliberately. I needed
a place in the capital, where I could take legislators, and have them see
it work.
For Congressmen who haven't seen one of these programs, you really
have to see it : it is the only way you will be convinced yourself.
Here is a totally open program with kids about as open, responsive,
and friendly as young people, as you would meet any place. I think
they discard a lot of the defenses you find with average adolescents in
high school. Our kids at Criswell House don't bother with that non-
784
sense. They come forward, tell you who they are, and ask if they can
help you. They are nice kids.
Mr. McDonald. Why would Criswell House be so effective as op-
posed to others in the State ?
Mr. Keller. I think they are about on the same level. It isn't that
Criswell House is so unusual — for instance, Jim, when you came to
Florida, it was very convenient to take you right from the airport to
Criswell House.
Mr. McDonald. One of the young people had come from another
group home and said it just didn't work. He was happy to be at Cris-
well House. My question is, do they get more funding at Criswell
House ?
Mr. Keller. No. A good thing about a halfway house program is
that, if a guy isn't making it at Hillsborough House because he doesn't
like the guys there, we move him where he can find some friends.
I can remember when I was a kid, my folks sent me to boarding
school. I wish I had been out of that school and someplace else. Some-
times you don't fit in a particular place.
The same thing is true in a halfway house. You may get in Pinellas
House, and run into a bunch of guys you don't click with. If we move
you over to Tampa to Hillsborough House, you might find some
buddies over there.
Mr. McDonald. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Keller, how is Criswell House operated.
Mr. Keller. How do you mean, Mr. Chairman ?
Chairman Pepper. It is operated under the direction of youth serv-
ices?
Mr. Keller. Yes, sir.
Chairman Pepper. You own the house ?
Mr. Keller. The State owns the house.
Chairman Pepper. Did you build it or rent it ?
Mr. Keller. Again, we liaven't built anything. All of our programs
are things we have purchased. It was a white elephant on the real
estate market in Tallahassee. It was used as the Florida Sheriffs Asso-
ciation's training academy. When the Florida Sheriffs' Association
went out of that particular business, and turned that job over to the
department of law enforcement, the building stood empty, which was
good for us.
Chairman Pepper. How many boys does it house ?
Mr. Keller, About 25. We also have a graduate program. Florida
State University gave us a house they didn't need. We moved it to our
grounds. For some of the boys who have no place to go home when
they finish Criswell House, they can move into the graduate program,
where they have to support themselves.
Chairman Pepper. Wliat would be a typical day in the life of those
boys?
Mr. KJELLER. Get up about 6 : 30, with all of those chores to do in a
place like that. They have breakfast about 7 ; catch a schoolbus, which
comes right to the house ; and then they engage in the regular school
program at Godby High School. When they return in the afternoon
to Criswell House, there are chores to be done. The place has to be
neat. Boys get different assignments. One guy takes care of the bath-
785
room ; somebody else helps out with the cooking. After supper, they
go into the groups.
^ The groups are the big thing. Nothing interferes with that. The
kids realize the groups are the focus of the program.
Chairman PErPER. They rap together, they have discussions, movies ?
Mr. Keller. No movies. It is just talk. It is the kind of thing you
saw at Eed Wing, exactly.
Chairman Pepper. What Federal funds are you receiving in Florida
for the group services ?
Mr. Keller. We find LEAA has been a lifesaver for us. That is
important money. There has been a pitiful amount of money from
YDDPA, tlie Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention Ad-
ministration, amounting to $100,000 a year per State. That was never
funded, really. Congress never put any money into it.
Chairman Pepper. Do you recall how much you are getting from
LEAA?
Mr. Keller. Yes; we will get about $1.2 million from LEAA this
year. Compared to the former title IV-A money LEAA was a poor
relation. IV-A was great, while it lasted.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Keller, from your experience, if you were
designated by the President and the Congress of the United States to
curb crime in America, or be responsible for curbing crime anyway
you could, wliat would you do to carry out that mandate?
Mr. Keller. j\Ir. Chairman, I would change some of our national
priorities. I think I would put heavy emphasis on the whole criminal
justice problem. I am convinced — my viewpoint is biased, because
I am in this business — it is the No. 1 problem of this Nation.
I think that the people in any kind of power position must realize
we sort of loap what has been done before. We pick people up after
they should have been helped earlier. I favor programs that would
improve the living conditions in this country.
I am really talking about spending big money. I can recollect what
it was like living in Chicago and seeing the slums of that citv. Thev
are horrendous slums. They are scary. You see them as breeding
grounds for delinquents and criminals. It is a fearful way of life.
I lived on the South Side by the university near scary neighbor-
hoods. Those are pockets in our rich society that are just producing
criminals.
I think major efforts need to be made to change conditions like those.
I think major efforts need to be made to improve schools. The schools
must have programs that are relevant to kids' needs.
I feel sorry for the school people. They have so much to do. More
and more things are being given to the schools to do. But if it isn't
done at the school level the kids are going to end up with me, and
that shouldn't be.
All that time the young person is in school is when he really needs
the help, not when he is 14 or 15 and has become a "bomb-out" and
turned off of society. These kids get more and more alienated and
hostile. They fail at home; the police arrest them; they get kicked
out of school ; they begin to experiment with drugs as a method of
escape.
By the time we get them it is not too late, but it is sad that it's that
way".
786
The great thing about kids, or about people, is that you can see
people change if they are placed in circumstances where they get some
kind of opportunity and some kind of res]oect, and have a chance to
make it.
I am very strong, by the vpay, on participatory management. I believe
correctional administrators ought to listen to the people they are serv-
ing. We had a conference, Congressmen, a year ago, in St. Petersburg,
where we brought staff and kids together for a day and a half.
The staff was from different levels of our agency. We had adminis-
trative types like myself, and we had houseparents, probation and
parole officers, intake workers, and group leaders. We also had about
25 kids. The staff", frankly, outnumbered the kids 2 to 1, but that was
because I was trying to train the staff".
The kids will level with you and tell you whether your programs are
any good or not. If a kid doesn't see a program as helping him, then
it is not helping him. If he thinks it is a lousy, stinking program and
it isn't any good, then it isn't any good for him.
The reason I say that is because I sort of know which of our pro-
grams are better than others. After all, I live with this agency. When
you have a good treatment program or vocational program which is
really teaching kids something, they will tell you it is great. "I am
really learning something in this program. I am really being helped.*'
The honesty of kids is one of the things that attracts me to kids, be-
cause they will tell you how they think.
Chairman Pepper. May I ask you a question? In that position, if
you were asked the question, ''Do you think crime would be more effec-
tively curbed by improving all our correctional institutions in this
country, the correctional program for youth and adults, and improv-
ing the court system of the country and giving summer jobs, recrea-
tional opportunities to children, ^particularly disadvantaged children
as to whether that or reimposing the death sentence for the committing
of violent crime or heinous character would be more effective in curb-
ing crime," what would your answer be ?
Mr. Keller. Mr. Chairman, I don't think the death penalty stops
crime at all. Let me be candid on that. There are crimes committed,
such as the Manson murders and the Speck murders. My first reaction
is to eliminate such murderers immediateh\ I would like to wipe them
out.
But that doesn't deter people from committing crimes of that type.
The people who commit those crimes are sick individuals, twisted
individuals, who come from generally rotten situations.
I read the case histories of the kids that come to this agency I am
responsible for — the life situations of these people are often hideous.
You mentioned the girls who have been molested by their own relatives.
I have laiown kids that have been brutally beaten over and over again.
You don't live through something like that without having it affect
you.
If I could make an analogy : People seem to understand how a guy
going throuffh the Vietnam war can come out acting a little funny.
They say, '-Gee, consider what that giiy went tlirough. He was over
there in the Hue campaign for 3 months." ISTow the delinquent: Think
of the campaign he has been goina; throug-h for 1.5 vears. That is whv he
IS like he is.
787
The death penahy just does not deter people if they feel like killing-
people. I would like" to see people like Charlie Manson done away with.
But, the way our system has worked, the only people who get done
away with are the poor. If you have the money, or if you have a cele-
brated case, you will get an outstanding attorney who will generally
keep 3'ou away from the chair.
Chairman rEPrEU. I understand your answer to be that we could do
more to curb crime, including heinous crime, by these things we are
talking about now — improving the school system so as to make the
school program more stimulating to the students and improving our
correctional institutions, programs for ju\'eniles and adults, and
other programs — to make life more meaningful and significant to
individuals.
]\Ir. Keleer. ]Mr. Chairman, the answer to that is yes.
"Wliat you are really talking about is restructuring the Nation's pri-
orities ; where you put your money.
Chainnan Pepper. You know, what you and these other gentlemen
who told us about these innovative programs are really doing is offer-
ing opportunity to live more or less a normal life for a lot of people
who haven't had that opportunity.
There was a young lady here yesterday, pregnant by a young man
she was living with, who seems to have found herself under a new
program. She wants to be a counselor in one of these youth program
institutions. She didn't have any family problem, apparently. She
didn't have any estrangement between her mother or father or any
poverty or turmoil in the home, that seemed to disturb her.
But for some strange reason when she was al)0ut 13 years old slie
began to mn away. I guess there are those peculiar manifestations on
t]ie pait of individuals. By and large, these students that come into
these juvenile court programs and into your program are students that
ordinarily haven't had an opportunity for such as your wilderness
in'ogram or had respect and dignity, and had not the type of environ-
ment or stimulating life they found in vour halfway houses and the
like.
You are really offering them something that is a new experience.
They come out of the ghetto ; they come out of environments which are
discouraging, frustrating, and disappointing: and into contact with
people who are stimulating and inspiring and the like. You are realh'
offering them privileges that they have not actually enjoyed, if they
have enjoyed any at all in their former life before they came there.
That I think is one of the basic reasons for the success you have had
in influencing the future lives of these individuals.
AVould you see some elements of truth in that ?
Mr. Kfxler. I wovild.
Chairman Pepper. One other thing. This committee held six hear-
ings last year on drugs in the schools, starting in New York, then
]Miami, Chicago, San Francisco, Kansas City, Kans., and Los Angeles.
"\Ve discovered the serious nature of the drug problems in the schools.
In general have you observed that the tendency on the part of the
school authorities has been to kick them out ?
^Ye have been talking about the Federal Government assisting these
schools that have a financial crisis, helping them to put in these pro-
grams you told about, to make the school life more stimulating.
788
I remember we had a school supervisor in, I believe it was, San
Francisco. He said his objective was to make each of his students ex-
perience one interesting- thing every day. Well, now, you are not going
to get so many dropouts if you have that kind of a school program,
are you ?
Mr. Kellek. That is right.
Chairman Pepper. I wish you could counsel the schools and help
them to devise a program that would keep more students coming to
you.
Mr. Keller. Let me grab that one for just a moment. We can, and
the law in Florida says we should. Our jDroblem is that when the
money is divided up, legislatures generally don't see the importance of
prevention. They have been very good to us with regard to improving
correctional programs, community-based programs, and so on. But,
if the groups work with these so-called bad kids in lialfway houses
and training schools, they will surely work in the public schools.
A number of our field services people, on their own initiative, are
working with teachers to teach them how to "do groups." Instead of
throwing kids out of school, get them together, and get them to talk
the way they do in our institutions.
Let me be very specific about the results we have seen in our training
schools. In the Florida institutions, in 1967, the way they kept control
of the kids was to beat them. I have a leather strap in my office from
the old days. That isn't necessary when you get people to talk things
out.
Our runaways are way below what they used to be. We don't have
the sexual attacks, the gang rapes that used to take place — whicli is
what used to happen in the old days. We don't have the terrible racial
problems we used to have. Our schools were torn apart at one time by
racial conflict, because we were about 50-50. The kids now relate to
each other as people. You never hear anybody talking about the black-
white friction at these schools anymore. If that can happen in State
reform schools, where the groups, frankly, are not as intense as tliey
are in the community-based programs. These intense discussions can
help the public school systems.
Chairman Pepper. That is stimulating. This committee hopes we can
make recommendations that will be helpful to you people who do have
a vision of the future, a vision of what can be done.
The Federal Government can help the State and local communities
in putting in these innovative programs. We are just proud we have
a man like vou in Florida.
]\Ir. Maiin ?
Mr. Mann. I would like to inquire further about the group foster
home. How does that work ?
Mr. Keller. Eight behind me, you will find Mr. Joseph Eowan. He
is a walking encyclopedia on foster homes. It is simply a matter of
good recruitment. You can advertise; you can put an ad in the paper
telling people you are willing to pay "them $8 a day to take care of
someone's youngster.
If you take six of these kids into your home, in the course of a year's
time, you will make $14,000. You need to check the references of foster
parents closely because you have all kinds of people who will answer
ads of that type. But you will find, if you do careful screening and
789
background checking, you can get excellent people who really like
children.
The tragedy of so many of our foster home programs is that we
haven't paid them enough so they can at least break even. A lot of
people don't want to take a child into their home, with that terrific
responsibility, if they are actually going to lose money on the deal. On
$8 a day you don't lose. It is worth your time. Obviously one's social
life is going to be inhibited considerably if you have five or six kids
with problems in your home. Although you are going to be pretty
much of a homebody, this would not prevent you from working. You
could still go to work. The kids would be at school. You and your wife
would have the pleasure of having these youngsters with you in the
evening.
Mr. ]\'LvNisr. I guess to a large degree it depends on the home ?
Mr. Keller. It does.
Mr. Mann. How do jou arrive at the best number of youths in the
home ?
Mr. IvELLER. Well, there certainly isn't any hard research on it. We
are going for six kids per home for this reason. The rationale is there
are a lot of teenage kids who don't want to be the only kid in some-
body's home. One child might find it difficult to accept you and your
wife as substitute parents. But when you put five other kids there,
who have also had problems, there develops a certain "we-ness." You
have a group of kids. They do not feel alone, and you don't pretend to
be their parents. You are the people who are in charge. You are kind,
and so on. Again, it is the peer situation which is so important to teen-
agers. Mr. Lyneh pointed out that a lot of kids get in trouble because
they belong to a group, peer pressure, "Come on, man, you are afraid
to go. You are chicken." The peer group pressure can get a kid turned
around if the motivation is right.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Rangel ?
Mr. Rangel. No questions.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Nolde ?
Mr. Nolde. Do you agree with IMr. Schoen's view expressed this
morning that juvenile programs such as we have heard about today
can just as easily be transferable to adult centers ?
]Mr. Keller. Yes.
Mr. NoLDE. Could you elaborate on that ?
jNIr. IvELLER. I think in some ways the adult offender might be easier
to work with than kids. Most adults are conscious of what life calls
for. They may not loiow how to cope with life, but when you get some-
body in his twenties, he is beginning to think about what he is going
to be, or whether he is going to get married, and whether he is going
to hold a job.
A 14-year-old doesn't care about that at all. A 14-year-old, in being
a kid, is interested in having a good time. So, I think in a group that
involves adults, you are more likely to get serious, responsible thinking
about problems and what they are doing with their lives.
As I told Mr. Pepper a while ago, just from having Imown many
offenders personally, I have been lucky because I haven't known many
I considered vicious. I have known a lot of people in trouble, and a lot
in institutions, but only a few I would describe as vicious people. They
have done some bad things, but the reason they have is that most of
790
these people are very inadequate. They don't know how to cope with
life. They don't know how to manage ^their finances; they are impul-
sive. They want something so they go out and buy it on time. When
the payments become due they can't meet the payments and they be-
come frantic. The "man" is there to take the furniture away or re-
possess the car. They don't have a job that will pay money to make
those pavments. So they do something.
Mr. NoLDE. 'V^^iat about the many offenders who have shown such
a vicious pattern of criminality by the time they reach adulthood ?
Mr. Keller. Well, I am afraid at that stage you are dealing with
people who must be put away and behind bars — if they really are that
dangerous as individuals.
So here comes the youthful program administrator, putting in a
special plug for his programs : I think, if you are going to reach peo-
ple in trouble, you must reach them early and try to change the crime
pattern.
If you can get a Youn.o- person turned around, so the boy of 14 or 15
doesn't look upon himself as a criminal, then you have done something.
Crime can berome a lifestyle for some guvs. By the time thev f^et to
be in their 20's or 30"s. and have done a lot of institutional time, the
peoDlc in the institutions are their friends, not those on the outside.
You mav have read a book called "The Joint." by a man named Jim
Blake, which is about Raiford. Blake said that after a while a con-
firmed criminal is more comfortable in prison than out because all of
his friends are in prison.
]\Tr. NoLDE. Could vou give us an estimate of how many offenders
reallv need to be locked up, both juveniles and adults ?
Mr. Kellek. I will throw out the same fi.Q-nre I did before. I think
TO to 80 percent of the delinquents I work with can be treated very suc-
cessful] v in community programs, which would leave 20-30 percent
for institutionalization.
Mr. ISToLDE. Do vou have an estimate for adults ?
Mr. Keller. This is iust a wild flyer. I would say maybe the same.
I don't work in the adult field, so I shouldn't try to pass myself off as
knowledTcnble about a field where I haven't been. But my hunch is
that a great manv of those now in secure institutions could do fine in a
more onen pro.fram.
Mr. NoLDE. Thank vou. Mr. Keller, for your excellent testimony. I
have no further questions. ^Ir. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Keller, we thank you verv much. T know you
came here at .q:reat sacrifice and out of consideration for this commit-
tee and what it is trvin^r to do. We want you to know we are very grate-
ful to you for doing it.
Mr. Keller. I appreciate being asked to be here, Mr. Chairman.
Thank vou very much.
[Mr. Keller's prepared statement follows :]
Prepared Statement of Oliver J. Keller, Director. State Division op Youth
Service, Tallahassee, Fla.
Thanks to two covernorp and legislators who have consirlererl youth rorrer-
tions primarily a state, rather than local, responsibility, the Florida Division
of Youth Services represents very closely the model recommended by the Na-
tional Conference on Criminal Justice only three months ago here in Washing-
ton. It is a unified system, with responsibility in one state agency for delinquency
791
prevention, citizen involvement, juvenile intake to the courts, probation and pa-
role, training schools, community-based programs, and contractual service, such
as foster homes. Just a year ago, legislation was passed, whereby responsibility
for the detention of children before the courts will be shifted from the counties
by 1978. If legislation, introduced by one of the Division's chief supporters,
Senator Louis de la Parte of Tampa, passes this year, the entire process will be
accelerated, with the transition taking place in the G-months from this July to
December, and guaranteeing that no child will be held in any jail by the end of
1973.
The pay-oft" from this unified system is already evident. In a state where the
population has climbed by a million new residents in the last 5 years, and where
the state prison system is bursting at the seams, the Division of Youth Services
has empty beds in its training schools, is actually reaching for young offenders
from the adult system, and has reduced both the number of court commitments
and its own failure rate. This is significant in that the rate of juvenile popula-
tion growth in Florida is higher than the over-all population rate.
The single state-operated intake, probation, and parole program assures every
county in Florida the same level of service, regardless of the county's financial
situation. Wherever possible, children are diverted from the official courts and
corrections process, with parents and child given the option of non-official "con-
sent supervision." Working with professional staff" is a growing army of volun-
teers, people of all ages and backgrounds willing to work on a one-to-one basis
with children needing adult friends. The impact of these unpaid citizens in
helping children with family and school problems has been phenomenal.
A major premise of the division is that delinquent children, and those "in
need of supervision", have a variety of problems. Hence, the Division must offer
a variety of programs to meet these needs. With 11 group foster homes now
authorized by the legislature, the Division has discovered that children with
serious problems can be rehabilitated in private homes, provided the foster par-
ents are carefully selected, and provided tliey are paid a reasonable sum to
tnke somebody else's problem child into their home.
For children with more serious problems, the Division is gradually expanding
its network of staff-operated group treatment homes, halfway houses, START
centers, and TRY centers. The group treatment home, serving up to seven younger
delinquents, is a conventional residence, but manned by a trained husband-wife
team and a relief houseparent, rather than by foster parents. The halfway
house may be a small apartment building, an old motel or nursing home, or a
converted church. It houses from 20 to 25 typical delinquents, all of whom attend
public schools or hold jobs in the local community. The START center (using
terminology borrowed from New York's Division for Youth) is much the same
as a halfway house, but it has an educational program to serve delinquent chil-
dren too far behind academically to fit comfortably into a conventional school.
The TRY center is also within the community, with a program comparable to
that of a halfway house, but it lacks the residential component. The young people
live at home, coming to the TRY center for all-day programs of treatment,
school, or work.
With 25 state-operated community-based programs now in existence, the Divi-
sion of Youth Services has proven that serious delinquents can be treated suc-
cessfully in open, non-secure buildings fitting in with the structures around them.
Although neighborhood anxiety has initially been high in some areas, the good
po7iduct of the young people has, in every case, turned the majority of doubters
into supporters. Local people have been extremely generous, inviting the young
people into their homes, sponsoring recreation trips, and even donating funds
and labor to build a one-room school building at one START center.
The key to the success of Florida's community-based programs has been the
combination of intelligent, energetic staff with a form of treatment known as
reality therapy or guided group interaction. Very simply, a "guided group."
liring delinquent children together every day five days a week for 90 minutes
of intense disctission. In these discussions, no holds ar<^ barred. Young people
CPU pour o\it their anxiety and hatreds under the guidance of a staff memlier
who says comparatively little, letting the young TieoT<le deal with one another,
who keeps the conversation ontarget. and who divert the discussion if a par-
ticular yoimg person needs temporary relief. These guided groups demonstrate
that tef^n-ase children in trouble cnn be mnde to examine what thev pre doing
to their lives and can learn to act in more responsible fashion. In so doing, the
group members develop strong friend.ships and invariably become more open and
792
friendly in dealing with other people. Where they attend public high schools, the
so-called "bad kids" of Florida have been praised by school officials as among the
most courteous and friendly in the student body.
The "groups," as they are known in Florida, have also changed the atmosphere
of the training schools. A few years ago the most difficult children were con-
trolled in Florida's open, unfenced institutions through severe beatings with
leather straps. Corporal punishment now plays no part in the institutional
programs. Once young people are given the opportunity to talk honestly about
whatever bothers them, run-aways go down, assaults on stafC and one another
diminish, and destruction of state property hits a new low. As the young people
change, even old-line staff soften, confessing they no longer favor "the strap."
When the atmosphere within a training school changes from one of repression,
it then becomes possible to motivate young people with academic and vocational
programs teen-agers recognize as relevant.
The major problem with too many training schools in our country, and this
certainly holds true of Florida's two institutions for delinquent boys, is that
they are too large. Changing anti-social or even criminal individuals to "good
citizens" depends in large measure on the relationships established with staff
and with each other. The larger the institution, the less likely a genuine treat-
ment relationship will develop. The larger the institution, the more likely the
system will become the primary consideration, rather than the welfare of the
young people in it. Large institutions are often characterized by routine and
written regulations, with little flexibility possible to meet individual circum-
stances
In large training schools, the best-trained personnel are the administrators
who rarely have the opportunity for close, personal contact with individual
young people. In truth, the persons with the greatest influence on delinquent
children in most training schools are those at the bottom of the status ladder,
poorly paid, and possessing only a bare-bones education. While some excellent
employees fimction at this level, others are shallow, rigid personalities with
little interest in adolescents. Under these circumstances, rather than confronting
his problems, the institutionalized delinquent wants merely to "do his time and
get out of this place."
Considering the present state of knowledge, training school for delinquent
children will still have a role to play for a good many years to come. While 70
to 80 per cent of young people in trouble with the law can be successfully treated
in community-based progi'ams, some simply refuse to stay there. They run away
occasionally stealing cars or committing other acts that arouse communities.
Until our human sciences reach higher level than is now the case, such children
must be removed and placed in training schools. But these institutions should
be small, not more than 150 children, and with ample staff to do the job. In
Florida, for example, where the institution for the most difficult youthful of-
fenders has a population of only 150, the young people are housed with no use
of barbed wire fences, guard dogs, and gun-towers. In fact, the Howell Lancaster
Youth Development Center is an open institution, co-educational, and with only
sixteen young people to a cottage. The secret of its success is the group program,
plus sufficient staff to provide close supervision.
In discussing staff, the PhD and the MSW are not the first essentials. What is
essential is an individual with genuine affection and understanding for young
people, willing to work long hard hours. Naturally, if he has a good background
in the behavioral sciences, he is that much more attractive to the recruiter. But
it is the person, not the degree, that should come first. Some brilliant people, able
to earn the very highest degrees universitie.s can oft'er, should never work with
human beings. They simply have no concern or empathy for other people.
Part of the tragedy of governmental systems is the inflexibility of state per-
sonnel requirements, where adequate pay levels are tied to advanced degrees,
with little or no consideration given to other qualifications. Another sore point
is the federal wage and hour requirements which force people ready to work
with young people beyond an eight hour day to leave the institution grounds,
either because overtime has not been authoi-ized in advance by some superior,
or because the institution budget is too limited to allow for overtime payment.
The present situations, of course, are the products of previous abuses, where
totally xmqualified persons were given jobs for political reasons, and where
employees were worked 70 hours or more per week, with no time to themselves.
Still, from the point of view of the young delinquent who needs to talk with a
793
trusted employee, it is hard to understand why the conversation must be abruptly
terminated at 4 :00 p.m., and postponed until tlie next day.
In Florida, the goal is to gradually reduce the training school populations,
ending XAith one or two small, intensive treatment institutions, serving only
that small core of delinquents who are consistent failures in community pro-
grams. Legislators must understand that for this select group of young people,
the cost per day per child will be high— as maich as $30 a day. Close supervision
and high quality academic, vocational and treatment pi'ograms are crucial.
As for psychiatric staff, the very best assistance should be obtained on a con-
tractual basis for the comimratively limited number of delinquent children
requiring such help.
The Division of Youth Services is making ever wider use of contractual
services in broadening its range of programs for yoimg people committed by the
courts. In order to provide a masculine, demanding experience to adolescent
delinquents, the Division has contracted with the Florida Marine Institutes. In
four areas of the state, this not-for-profit coii>oration places boys on boats,
where they learn ship-handling, marine maintenance, fundamentals of oceanog-
raphy and ecology, and, at the same time, develop self confidence, based on
their ability to swim, to scuba-dive, and to face the open sea in a yawl or ketch.
For somewhat younger children, a similar program to improve self-concepts has
been developed in conjunction with the Jack and Ruth Eckerd Foundation. Fifty
young people live in a "wilderness camp," which consists of smaller units at con-
siderable distance from one another, scattered over several hundred acres of
wild terrain. In each subcamp live no more than ten children under the direction
of two college-age counsellors. The 10 to 14 year old children build their own
tents, fashion many utensils and other items from their surroundings, prepare
at least half the week's meals over open fires or in clay ovens, and undergo an
'•adventure trails" experience through pack trips, canoe expeditions, and constant
contact with the outdoors. Children unreached by any other programs begin to
show dramatic improvement in the "wilderness camp."
The Division holds the view that much more work must be done with troubled
young people while still in the public schools. Suspensions and expulsions are not
the answer. In addition to working on a limited basis with a few public school
systems to give teachers and administrators greater confidence in handling
Ijehavior problems, the Division has contracted with both the University of West
Florida and Florida Atlantic University to operate "branch campuses" on the
grounds of the two large boys' training schools. At Okeechobee, 60 young men
and women from Florida Atlantic live on the training school campus, attend
classes in the institution, and work half-time as teacher aides and recreation
aides. A somewhat similar program exists for twenty -five West Florida students
at Marianna. In addition, both universities place an equal number of students
in the Division's probation and parole offices. Here, too. the university students
are valued assistants. Not only does the age of the university students make
for easy rapport with the delinquent boys, but the FAU and West Florida stu-
dents are learning how to deal with boys most teachers shy away from. Upon
graduation, they will be able to work either for the Division of Youth Services
or in school systems where many teachers feel totally unsuited for coping with
problem behavior.
The most recent Division progress has been in the field of juvenile detention.
As state funds have been provided, and with the financial cooperation of county
governments, the Division is now operating detention service in the greater
Miami area and in the ten counties composing Florida's Panhandle. Ba.sed on a
state plan prepared by the nationally known John Howard Association, the Divi-
sion hopes to build no more secui-e lock-ups for children. Instead, by using exist-
ing county facilities, by placing "detention eases" in open homes, and by allow-
ing young i>eople to return home under the extremely close supei-s-ision of a
"home detention" program, the Division believes it can avoid placing many young
l>eople behind thick walls or steel while awaiting court appearances. Further-
more, the state plan points out that, when the system is fully operating and tied
together by a transportation unit, the total cost for the state of Florida will be
approximately the same sum now spent by the 20 counties (out of 67) offering
secure detention care other than the county jail.
Relatively neglected areas in Florida at present are staff development and
public education. As the state agency has grown larger, it is increasingly impor-
tant that employees share a common philosophy and skills in dealing with young
people in trouble. Not only must Divisitju personnel learn from one another, but
794
they must also know how young people feel about the Division's programs. Par-
ticipatory management sessions must be more frequent, permitting employees
from various levels within the agency to come together with the young people
committed to state care. Division personnel must hear from them whether or not
the agency is perceived as hurtful or helpful. Only if the young people perceive
what is happening as relevant to their needs will Florida have a youth correc-
tions system worthy of the name.
In the area of public education, the average citizen, and notably the schools,
must understand their roles in creating delinquents and in their reformation.
Vei'y often a young person will leave a Division facility with a genuine desire
to "turn over a new leaf." Unfortunately, nothing in the home community may
have altered. He may still be looked upon as a thief and an outcast. Under
such rejection, the young person can soon return to his old ways. The public
must understand that relief from crime of any kind can take place only when
there is understanding of why people get into difficulty, and acceptance of new
methods of treating offenders. If a marine institute program is looked upon as
"coddling criminals." no progress will be made. If eommunity-liased programs
are resisted with venom and threats, the country will continue to live with its
old institutions so frequently productive only of more dangerous offenders.
The most serious threat to correctional improvements in the juvenile field
has been the drastic cut-backs this year in federal funds. For example, under the
old guidelines, the Division of Youth Services was using $10 million a year in
Title IV-A funds of the Social Security Act. Traditionally, state youth corrections
agencies deal with the children of the poor. A large percentage of the Division's
young people come from families that are either present or potential recipients
of public assistance. The Title IV-A funds, coupled with state general revenue
dollars, made possible the consolidation of intake and probation with the al-
ready existing juvenile parole system. The consolidated system then made pos-
sible services where little or nothing had previously existed, and permitted the
Division to reduce commitments and failures.
In the middle of the 1972-73 fiscal year, however, the "rules of the game"
were suddenly altered drastically, causing all of Florida's social service agencies
to find themselves in a severe financial crisis. Had the Social Security funds
been permitted to continue under the old guidelines, the combination of federal
and state dollars would have accomplished many objectives previously out of
the question — genuine delinquency prevention efforts in cooperation with the
schools, a vastly expanded program of citizen volunteers and public education, a
staff development program able to train and motivate 3000 employees, and a
research and evaluation unit to provide the sort of data legislators request,
but seldom obtain on correctional programs.
The worst aspect of the federal cut-back, certainly, is that states do not know
whether or not they can count on federal funds. Instead of coinciding with the
state fiscal year, federal guidelines are apparently subject to change at any
time. When the last change occurred in the Title IV-A regulations, chaos en-
sued in state agency budgets, including the Division of Youth Services.
I appreciate having had this opportunity to be heard.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
INIr. Lynch, will you proceed.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, ]Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the next witness is Mr. Joseph Rowan, the executive
director of the John Howard Association.
Mr. Rowan was formerly the chairman of the Minnesota Youth
Conservation Commission and prior to that the director and consultant
to the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. He holds a B.A.
in criminology, a master's degree in correctional administration, and
a master's degree in social work.
The John Howard Association, under his direction, has been con-
ducting an intensiA^e study and evaluation of juvenile programs in
Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Maryland, and several other States.
Mr. Rowan, I wonder if you could address a few referatory remarks
to the committee at this time.
795
Cliairmaii Pepper. Mr. Eowan, we are very pleased to have you
liere. We know the splendid record of the John Howard Association
and what you are doing is certainly in the public interest. We are very
gratef id to you for being here with us.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH E. ROWAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JOHN
HOWARD ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO, ILL.
]Mr. Rowan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Keller covered very capably what has been developing in Flor-
ida over the past several j'ears, and I would only like to touch upon a
few points.
Florida was the 16th State in the country to adopt an overall com-
prehensive, continuous program for the handling of juveniles, in
which everything from detention all the way through probation, insti-
tutions, aftercare, including manj^ other adjunct services, are all oper-
ated, administered, and financed, by the State.
One of the sad situations which we have in this country is right
today, while we are sitting here, juveniles are not getting as good
probation services as adults, nationally. One of the major reasons is
the unified development of statewide probation standards and a pro-
gram for financing.
We have 37 States that administer and finance adult probation.
We only have 16 States which administer and finance juvenile
probation.
AVe are very happy to say that in Illinois, all of the dissident groups
during the past year and a half have been a part in helping pull to-
gether and have agreed upon the package of legislation which went
into the hopper last week to develop a State-administered, financed
probation system.
Judges are supporting it, probation people ai'e supporting it. So are
legislators, and we feel it will go. So Illinois, hopefully, will be No. 17
to follow this approach for juveniles and No. 38 for adults.
Mr. Keller talked about the effects of guided groups interaction, or
positive peer culture in Florida, and you witnessed the program in
MinnCvSota — Red Wing. I was meeting with some top house and senate
leaders of Virginia just the other day, Thursday of last week, and one
of their senators was commenting the same way about his impressions
about the guided group interaction program in Florida.
He visited the Marianna Institution. What Mr. Keller talked about
from the standpoint of reducing racial tensions is very true not only in
Florida but in Minnesota, and iMichigan where the guided group inter-
action or reality-based-concept approach is being developed.
I had the opportunity of talking with some people in the panhandle
of Florida, the public school system, and they told about how they saw
the reality-based counseling program working so effectively with
delinquents that they asked the fieldworkers if they could sneak in a
few nondelinquents.
So after a while, the program, the staff that INIr. Keller was respon-
sible for, started working with nondelinquents. The testimony from the
teachers in the public school system has been a real tribute to the pro-
gram of the division of youth services because this real delinquency
prevention has not only been able to help calm down the schools from
796
the standpoint of problems caused by delinquents but this has extended
into the nondelinquent category, which is going to have to be done in
a lot more places in this country.
Air. Keller touched upon the concept of home detention. St. Louis
is where this concept was developed in September of 1971. Under home
detention you take those youngsters who have been determined by in-
take and by the judge at the detention hearing, within 24 hours, that
are not good risks. You put them back out into the community under
intensive supervision, three eyeball contacts a day. One with the youth,
one with the parents, one with the schoolteacher or employer. I would
like to back up a minute.
Mr. Keller and others talk about intake. "\^nien the police arrest a
youngster, he comes to the detention home where they should have in-
take workers on 24 hours a day, or at least as Florida has developed,
the only State in the Union I know of that has 24-hour intake services
around the clock throughout the entire State.
Now, all of this intake is not onsite. But I can assure you, and we
have developed a major 5-year master plan study in Florida, if they
can't afford and don't have the business for an onsite worker, he gets
up at 2 in the morning, dresses, goes down to the jail and talks to the
youngster, eyeball to eyeball.
The practice was started several months ago. This has had a drastic
effect on reduced rate of detention there, approximately half in Miami
and approximately half in Jacksonville.
Getting back to St. Louis, where they have got some serious prob-
lems, crime and delinquency : they have some serious ghetto problems
and problems of financing juvenile and criminal justice programs.
This home detention concept is the best one that I have seen since I
started in the business many years ago. It has been the best thing since
the wheel, so to speak, in our field.
First, the police bring the youngster into the detention home. If in-
take feels he is not a safe risk to be released back to the community, he
stays. Then the next day the judge reviews the case and he makes a sec-
ond determination of whether he should be released back to the com-
munity. It is after intake and the judge have determined that this
youngster is not a safe risk to be released to the community that he is
released under home detention, under intensive supervision. At least
one contact a day with a streetworker, and these streetworkers, some
cannot read or write, have to give a verbal report There are no educa-
tional requirements. They are paid the same salary as the child-care
worker at the detention home.
The job which they are doing can be verified by talking with law
enforcement and other people iii^the community, as we have done.
In St. Louis, with 308 unsafe risks released to the community, not
one ran away over 13 months. "Wliile at the same time 10 youngsters
escaped from the secure detention home where they were behind lock
and key. There are a lot of morals to the story, which gets into what Mr.
Schoen, Judge Arthur, and Mr. Keller talked about earlier. The vol-
unteers get 10 days of training, minimal wages and some of these are
on welfare. There are good people in the ghettos that don't have the
degrees, but they can render a "we care" service. The most important
ingredient as far as I am concerned from the time I have been in the
797
business — I have a few masters degrees to defend that statement and
t hat is the only reason I mention it — is "we care."
A\''hcn a yoimgster, regardless of how diflicult he is, gets "we care"
service, he responds. They do screen out murderers and the real seri-
ous cases with long records, but remember, the home detention cases
are cases that are not determined to be good risks by intake and the
judge during two previous screening contacts.
So just think what this would do by extending this concept of home
detention to the probation field. In Minnesota, when I was there, from
1062 to 1907, we had caseloads of 35, a well-disciplined system, but
time studies showed that with these caseloads per probation officer they
cannot give any more than 50 minutes a month to both the youngster
and his family. But under home detention, they get an hour or so a
day.
Talking about probation : In California today, they are using pro-
bation in 84 percent of their dispositions. This is on the adult level.
When you get down into the juvenile level, which j'our committee is
more interested in this week, California is committing 30 percent of
the kids to State training schools.
But you have to discuss both of these at the same time to put them
into perspective. California has doubled the use of adult probation in
the last 6 to 7 years. They have reduced the commitments down to 30
percent for juveniles.
All during this time, with the rising crime rates in many States,
California has been able to reduce the crime increase from 22 percent
down to loss than 5 percent. We predict it is going to level off.
It must be kept in mind that California still has some major prob-
lems of population — but they are progressing.
Chairman Pepper. In crime generally or in the juvenile area ?
Mr. EowAX. The crime rate across the board. They don't know
whether it is adult or juvenile. That is the reason why you really have
to discuss both at the same time. It is part juvenile, it is part adult. I
was in California in March 1972 for a 3-day conference with law en-
forcement and research people, and some of the get tough boys were
saying: "We are using probation too much. Look what has happened,
our rising crime rate." But if they got out the FBI Uniform Crime
Report, which they helped fill in as far as these statistics are concerned,
they would see that the crime rate in California has dropped from 22
percent 7 years ago to less than 5 percent.
In Wisconsin, considering all convicted persons, they have 91.5 per-
cent of all of the offenders in the State on probation, after care and pa-
role in the adult level. Only 8.5 percent are in institutions. Here again
it is a combined system like Minnesota. Wisconsin has an extremely
low rate of institutionalized offenders. I want to cite another example
of what I talked about earlier.
Wisconsin has the best adult probation system in the country. Both
the National Council on Crime and Delinquency and we, have expressed
comment on this publicly. And yet in Wisconsin we just finished a
survey and they have one of the most undeveloped juvenile probation
systems. Adult probation is operated, administered, financed by the
State, and juvenile probation is a hodge podge. Some of it by the State
on a free gratis basis, really. Some by welfare operated by the State ;
95-158— 73— pt. 2 11
798
some by welfare operated by the counties ; some by the county courts
themselves. It is basically a county system.
Ten out of 10 judges in Wisconsin said : ''We have better probation
services for adults in my county than we do for juveniles.'* So the
moral of the story is, basically, in this country, they say the oroveni-
ment is best which governs closest; but it really doesn't hold true in
corrections.
State administered and financed probation lias worked l^est for
adults; basically it works best for juveniles in the States as we have
shown.
Mr. Keller and others talked about group liomes. We ai-e very
liappy t/O say Wisconsin has 45 family-operated group homes. Florida
has developed approximately a dozen in the past 6 months. Ramsey
Ooimty, St. Paul, Minn., has 32. In 1962, tliey had zero.
Welfare departments said you can't find any gi-oup homes for
delinquents. Minnesota, overall, how has 57, a number of them oper-
ated by the State, by Mr. Schoen's programs of 1957. Benton ITarbor-
St. Joseph, Mich., has developed seven family-operated group homes
since last September.
In this country many of the, corrections depai-tments, unfortunately,
have gone too professional. They have paid a lot of money, up to
$14,000 a year, to take care of a j^oung-ster in a staff group operated
group home or halfway house. About 85 percent of onr delinquents.
and the most difficult ones in the system, can be cared for in well
selected, trained, and staffed familj'-operated group homes. Good.
healthy, average American parents.
Two hundred dollars per child a month and a high success rate,
Wisconsin has a 4-year research project. The worst delinquents in
the system, over a 65-percent social deterioration compared to 15-16
percent social deteiioration, where the kids Avent back to their own
homes, and yet 28 percent fewer kids that Avere in the family-operated
group homes went back to institutions and delinquencv compared to
the better kids that went back to their OAvn liomes. This is 4 vears
of research. No rent, no real estate, no petitions to keep half^vay
houses and State-owned and State-opernted facilities from existing.
Getting back into another area, my first testimonv before a con-
gressional committee was basically regarding Cook Countv Jail, Avliich
got worldwide attention about 5 years ago. I testified before two con-
gressional committees on it. National media carried stories on it. Elec-
tric refrigerators in cells of Mafia members. About 18 to 20 people un-
accounted for from the standpoint of why they died inside that jail in
1967. They had eight suicides in 1970. We are very happy to say, and
on a positive tone, in these presentations this week that they have had
two suicides in Cook County Jail in approximately the past 2 yeai-s
and 3 months. That is a far cry from 8 deaths in 1 year, 20 deat-hs in
1 year, most of them unaccounted for.
Cook County Jail does take care of youngsters 14 years of age and
up that cannot be handled in the juvenile detention home. This is why
I brouo-ht up this positive development — and it really is one.
As far as citizen volunteers are concerned. I strongly recommend
Lafayette, Ind,, if it hasn't been called to your attention. It would
be good to have one of two women Avho got that program started, with
the help of Howard James from the Christian Science Monitor, to
799
testify here. They asked Howard James to testify, or to talk in town,
and he said, "I am not going- to talk in town unless you can get 100
people agreeing basically, and unless you are going to do something
about it."
In the last 2 years they have gotten 23 priorities accomplished and
it is phenomenal what they have been able to do in mobilizing that
community, a pattern which we feel needs to be extended all over the
country. They have a youth service bureau started, a 30-bed private
treatment institution Aolunteers in probation started which has existed
in many places throughout the country. They have tutoring programs
and minority studios in the schools. They have tax reforms brought
about for special education programs, and I could go on and on for
about 18 more priorities.
This was done through volunteer citizen effort.
In Minnesota, we took the worst 18 delinquents we could find in
Mninesota in 1965 and when I proposed this idea to the commissioner,
he said, "You are going to have to get a majority of the officials in
this community to support it l)ecause I tliink it's risky."
So I met with the two sheriffs, the two judges, the two chiefs of
police, and two county attorneys or their top representatives. We got
six of the eight officials to support it. Two said they wouldn't support
it publicly but they wouldn't criticize us publicly if it failed.
The idea was, if we could help 2 or 3 out of these 18 and stop them
from crime, we could Avoi-k with any youngsters less sophisticated.
All of these youngsters had two prior institutionalizations: one had
nine. These youngsters came right off the streets, within 30 days, from
Minneapolis and St. Paul, for offenses including armed robbery and
serious assault. Xone of the eight officials vetoed our plan.
This program was research in 1972, 51/2 years later. Of these 18
cases, the worst in the system. 15 never went into the adult field. They
stopped as juveniles. Only three are presently in the adult system.
The six that were discharged at the end of the 6-montli intensive
reality-based group counseling program never violated later. This
pioneering project laid the foundation for the guided group inter-
action concept that followed later.
Another aspect of that program — we had the parents of these delin-
quents meet every 2 weeks. The first request in Minneapolis, the second
request in St. Paul, was "We want to meet weekly because we are get-
ting help out of these sessions." During this G months, one or both
parents attended every one of the group counseling sessions. Only one
youth missed a session.
So I do not buy what a lot of people say is fact: That parents don't
care. No parent wants to be a poor parent from the standpoint of
raising delinquents. If we offer the lielp they will take it up and
accept it.
The upcoming Juvenile Court Act by the National Council on Crime
and Delinquency is going to remove tniancy. incori-igibility. and mn-
away from the juvenile court, and we are long overdue on this, ^'ou
asked a question earlier, Mr. Chairman, about the first tiling I would
do. I think the greatest impact in this country will be when truancy,
incorrigibility, and runaway are removed from the juvenile court. Wc
have propelled many 3^oungsters into the prison systems that we have
today. Half of the kids in Florida, half of the kids in most other
800 I
States, that are in training schools, reform schools for delinquents, are
not delinquent.
They have been incorrigible and truant. Louis Wille, Pulitzer Prize
winner for the Chicago Daily News, pointed out, right down the
middle of the ghettos we have a high dropout rate in one school dis-
trict, a low dropout rate in another school district, and from our stand-
point we have been beating parents too long in this business, and from
my standpoint and a lot of other professionals in my business, about
half of the problem in the delinquency stems from inadequate educa-
tional systems.
When we remove either compulsory education laws or remove tru-
ancy from the criminal end of the juvenile court we are going to make
major advances in this field.
As far as LEA A is concerned in this field, there is a tremendous
lack of research. We are very happy to see research being developed
in Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington State, California, end
a few other States. But basically, there isn't much research in this
country of hard-fact nature with control groups and so on. Major
amounts of money have been given out in this country. Wisconsin is
a prime example. We are starting in a week or so the first major
research project with LEAA funding in that State. Other States are
the same way — they're just staiiing — awful late.
A lot of moneys have been spent, but no research to really know
what we are doing. As far as long-range planning is concerned I can
cite Maryland, Florida, Michigan, Kansas, Virginia ; five States where
we have been involved. Eeally, the only five States I know of that
have had comprehensive long-range master plans developed which
had outside professional involvement.
Sure, every State has to have a 5-year plan, but they are not com-
prehensive. They are not really detailed. They don't involve subjects
in tlie system as Mr. Keller talked about, and we have seen a million
dollars poui-ed down one vocational training program and nobody
ever asked the blacks whether they wanted to go into the tailoring
business. They have since closed that business. Why? The black said,
"This is a woman's job." And if you studied black culture this is
true — this is the way they feel. So you have to involve subjects in the
business.
As far as staff training is concerned we are very happy to say Minne-
sota and Washington State are spending at least 10 percent of their
budgets on staff training. Over a million dollars in Minnesota, and
yet in some States, Maryland, where we made a long-range study,
$70,000 was being spent on training, for comparable budget, compar-
able staff, $70,000 versus a million dollars.
The last item, and then I will be glad to open up to any questions.
We have got to involve the subjects in the system a lot more. I have
been involved in about 500 studies of institutions and programs since
1955, and never once have I seen youngsters or adults lie on a pattern
basis. I will say for the record here, having been in the survey busi-
ness since 1955, inmates have been more truthful than staff as to how
the programs are from the standpoint of caliber, qualitatively and
quantitatively.
801
Mr. Lyxcii. Mr. TJowaji, T was remiss in not askiniv yon to do this
earlier. Wonld yon very briefly describe what the John Ilowai'd As-
sociation is, how it got into the corrections business ?
Mr. Row^vx. Thank yon very mnch.
John Howard Association was founded in this country in 11)01, pat-
terned after the English John Howard Society in 1T2(>, extended into
Canada, the British Empire, and so on. We spent our first 50 years
studying prisons and jails, trjdng to ui)grade them, found out it was
a pretty fruitless job.
You have to get started earlier, so most of our work is concenti'ated
in the juvenile field, including prevention, upgrading tlie educational
system, and getting started earlier in the community.
Mr. Lyxcii. Under the former office of juvenile delinquency and
youth development in the Department of Health, P^ducation, and Wel-
fare, moneys were made available for juvenile justice planning. Can
)'ou give us your judgment as to how effective tliose plans were and
could you tell us whether or not they have been implemented on a
nationwide basis?
Mr. EowAX. Unfortunately, most of these liave been in-house plans,
and with in-house plans 3"ou can develop good results; but, also, they
are mainly operational in nature, not involving strategic and tactical
versus planning. -""^
Mr. Lyxch. What do you mean by "in-house plans" ?
Mr. RowAX. Developed primarily by top administration in these
various programs. And I say to you an outside consultant, including
our agency, cannot go into a State and develop a long-range plan and
hand it to you on a silver plattei-. There has got to be a combination of
both the inside and outside. Like MaT-yland, we helped train the top
21 staffs for 25 hours on long-range planning. We believe in talking
ourselves out of business by training the staff in these States to do
long-range planning, to keep the plan current, so they don't have to
call us back in.
Mr. Lyxch. Have you had an occasion, has John Howard Association
had occasion to examine the State law enforcement plans, which, as
you know, are required under LEAA for Federal moneys? Have you
done a survey of the plans of all of these 35 States and jurisdictions?
JNIr. RowAX. No, we haven't. We have worked in various
States: Michigan, Florida, Kentucky, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Those
are basically the States we woiked in the last several years.
Mr. Lyx'cit. When you indicated thei-e were five States you knew of,
you did not mean to indicate that that was the result of comprehensive
survevs that you had done ?
Mr. Row^AX. No; but from discussions with other national agencies,
those are about the only five that are in existence as far as we know.
Air. Lyxch. I would commend to yon the State plan from New
Hampshire, Mr. Rowan, which is very long range and very involved
with juvenile programs.
What, in your judgment, is the state of juvenile corrections on a
nationwide basis? We heard some remarkable programs yesterday
from Massachusetts, today from Florida. Are tliese peo))le on the
frontier or is this a common thing across the country? What is the
national status ?
802
Mr. RowAX. Probationwise, as I mentioned earlier, adult probation
is better than juvenile probation nationally in most States, quality
and quantity. As far as other programs are concerned, basically, as
I testified before other committees earlier in my life, we have had more
brutality in juvenile institutions than adult institutions and it is prob-
ably true today.
Mr. Lynch. The question really was. Are we to regard the programs
we have heard described from Massachusetts and Florida as at the
forefront of the juvenile correction field? Are they leaders?
Mr. EowAX. Yes, definitely. Those five or six States that have been
mentioned, are.
Mr. Lyxcii. You mentioned, I think you said 16 States had statewide
juvenile probation systems. Why is it desirable to have a State system ?
Mr. Rowan. It is easier to develop corrections in one system than
102 counties like Illinois, or TO-some in Virginia, and 67 or 66 in Flor-
ida. Continuity, coordination, developing minimum standards, staff
training, recruitment, and keeping politics out of the system. Those
are the major reasons why local systems are not developed.
Mr. Lynch. It goes to an issue of quality as well as efficiency ?
Mr. Rowan. Right, both.
Mr. Lynch. Your association, I believe, has been doing an evalua-
tion of programs in Florida. Is that correct ?
JNIr. Rowan. Yes ; we have.
Mr. Lynch. What programs liave you looked at in Florida?
Mr. Rowan. We made a statewide study and rendered the report
on the 15th of February regarding juvenile detention and related pro-
grams. Earlier, our first study was for the House committee on criminal
justice regarding the adult area, and that study compelled us to go
back to the House committee and say, "If we are going to study the
adult area, we feel we had better study the juvenile area," which we,
did, and that is when juvenile probation and intake became State
functions. That was our No. 1 recommendation.
Chairman Pepper. House of Representatives of the Congress?
Mr. Rowan. House committee on criminal justice in Florida.
Mr. Lynch. "\'\liat were the salient findings and recommendations
in that study ? If you could, relate them to us.
Mr. Rowan. The No. 1 study was that if prisons were to be stop]ied
from the standpoint of admissions, you would have to start back in
the juvenile area. While we were hired to make a study of the prison
and probation and parole situation adultwise in Florida, in 1971, after
the riot at Raiford, after a month and a half of study, we said we
should concentrate on the juvenile area.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Rowan, I am sorry, we have to take a 10-
minute recess to go over and vote.
[A brief recess was taken,]
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order. Please pro-
ceed, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Rowan, before the recess, we were discussing the
state of corrections on a national basis. I wonder if you could sum-
marize that testimonv for us in regard to what level of progress is being
made in the several States in improving the juvenile correctional sys-
tem. Do we have a reason to hope ?
803
Mr. Rowan. Basically, in response to your question, the answer is
'•Yes'*; the States that have been represented here, in Florida and Min-
nesota. We have talked about developments in Washington State,
California, and ^Massachusetts. These are the cream of the crop, so to
speak. This is not the picture throughout the country. And in many
areas we have adult corrections which are far better than juvenile.
Probation is the main one.
Institutions alike, as far as the lack of brutality. So in the juvenile
field, they stuck to tradition to such a great extent; namely, institu-
tions, institution, institutions ; but I was happy to hear the tenor of dis-
cussions here today. A small percentage of the youngsters eA^er need be
cared for in institutions. And even the worst ones, as we saw in that
offender project involving 18 youths in Minnesota, do a lot better in
the community.
Mr. Lynch! Is that the view of the John HoAvard Association, that
that is a correct posture, that only a very small percentage of juveniles
need to be incarcerated ?
Mr. Rowan. Juveniles and adults both. Only a small percentage.
I forgot to mention, ]Michigan. where we are involved in an overall
master plan study for the legislature there. We are very happy to say,
like in Pontiac and Ann Arbor, less than 10 percent of the kids are
kept in juvenile detention pending a court hearing. Less than one-half
of 1 percent of the kids are committed to State institutions, and that is
the lowest we have run across in the country.
Chainnan Pepper. 'Wliere is that?
]Mr. Rowan. Michigan. Michigan has got some very good pockets,
metro-urban communities, where they are using diversion to a great
extent, more than any I have ever seen in the 18 years I have been in
the survey business. One-half of 1 percent of the kids arrested get com-
mitted to State institutions. Less than 10 percent of them are detained,
])ending disposition by the court. Most places will run 20, 30, -40
percent.
Mr. Lynch. But it is vour testimony that is not the case in the major-
ity of the States?
^Ir. Rowan. Xo. Kids are kept in jails in the majority of the States.
The high rate of detention which will run 20 to 40 percent in most
places I have studied since 10.5.5. Probation, 90-9.5 percent of the use
of the probation is the one-to-one counseling approach that merits
about 10 to 20 minutes a month per kid, instead of 20 hours a month
thi-ough the group process, group counseling, like goes on in Florida
and ]NIinne.sota. There are only a handful of States that are using
that approach.
So in the juvenile field, they just really have gotten going with these
concepts that have been discussed here today.
Mr. Lynch. Based on your experience as a ])rofessional in the cor-
lectional field, and your many years of doing surveys, would it be your
judgment that in the larger number of cases that incarceration is harm-
ful rather than helpful for juveniles?
]Mr. Rc^wAN. Absolutely. The kids come out worse than they went in.
Thev are criminalized.
]Mr. Lynch. Can you venture, Mr. Rowan, an opinion — it seems to
me this is a commonly lield view in the correctional world now, that
804
perhaps a small bod}^ of professionals who work in this field generally
agree on this issue — as to why it is that the States are not moving in
this direction? AVliy do we still have juvenile prisons, as it were?
' Mr. Rowan. Public attitudes prevail, right or wrong, and the great-
est single need in this entire field of delinquency and crime handling is
for better informed and involved public, which will then support sound
policies and provide the tools to do the j ob properly.
Four out of five administrators in our business do not tell their
story to the public about the good things as well as the bad. This is a
major problem in this country. Corrections is 15 to 20 years behind
mental health as far as public understanding is concerned. That is
why I am very happy to see the committee doing what it is doing and
getting the word out to the public.
]\Ir. Lynch. Who should bring to the public the knowledge that you
have been discussing, Mr. Rowan; whose function is that?
Mr. Rowan. Correctional administrators need training very badly
in public and citizen involvement, informing and educating the pub-
lic, both the ])roblems and needs, as well as the positive aspects of their
programs. Through the LEAA programs it has been recommended
by our agency that no grants be given unless representative citizen
advisory committees work with them on the State as well as the local
basis. But they really exist symbolically only, not real involvement by
agriculture, business, industry, labor, laws, and news media. So it
is a combination that is necessary.
LEAA, I think, needs to take more leadership and have some re-
quirements with grants. No major grants without research components
being built in. No major grants without a strong representative citizen
advisory committee being built into the project.
Mr. Lynch. You would strongly advocate that juvenile justice
programs, I take it, be designed with the assistance of, in fact, juvenile
delinquents ?
Mr. Rowan. Absolutely. Again, no long-range or sliort-range plan-
ning should be carried out without full involvement of the subjects.
Mr. Lynch, Mr. Rowan, we had a very thoughtful and articulate
young policeman from Kansas City the other day, who in response
to a question told us that the problem as he saw it was not one of solu-
tions, it was one, in fact, of understanding what the problems were.
Do we understand what the problems are in juvenile corrections?
Mr. Rowan. Not very well from the standpoint that I mentioned
earlier. I only know five States, and you mentioned New Hampshire
as the sixth State, with real in-depth, comprehensive, long-range plan-
ning. In order to have that you have to start with a determination of
missions and goals. Most planning starts with operational planning,
budgets, year-to-year.
So determining mission and goals first, Avhich is strategic planning,
tactical planning, which means determining objectives and then you
determine programs to implement objectives and goals. Basically, we
don't have that except in a handful of States. We don't know, really,
what the goals and objectives should be.
Mr. Lynch. There are juvenile justice or juvenile help programs in
a myriad of Federal agencies. Do you think that the Federal Govern-
ment has fulfilled its responsibility to provide guidelines and goals,
priorities, in the juvenile justice system ?
805
Mr. Rowan. I feel that the same lack has existed in the Safe States
Street Act as in the OEO. There weren't enough long-range planners
around ^A'ith any background in this business. We sort of trained them
in our field — not in colleges and universities. It has only been withm
the last year or so I have really seen more emphasis on the long-range
planning, and encouragement to States to get in independent bodies
to do this on a teamAvork basis, involving subjects in the system, in-
volving stall', and not just administrators.
Mr. Ltxch. Thank you, Mr. Rowan.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. McDonald, do you have any questions ?
]Mr. INIcDoxALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one question
for Mr. Rowan.
As you know, this week we are emphasizing the positive programs
throughout the country, what is being done, what innovative programs
are being implemented throughout the country. From your position
Avith the John Howard Association, you have an overview. Can you
give the committee an idea of what States would benefit most by read-
ing the testimony being heard in these hearings ?
In other words, what States are far behind? Can you elaborate on
that, if you would.
]Mr. RowAX. Yes. If you obtain from the Xational Education Asso-
ciation their study, which I think is 1970, of the number of ninth
graders who eventually graduate from high school and start from the
bottom and work out, that will be a pretty good correlation with de-
velopments that we have in the juvenile correction field.
^Minnesota, which was represented here today, has the highest num-
ber of youngsters that graduate from high school and the lowest num-
ber of dropouts. Iowa ranks second, California ranks third. California
is the largest State with the lowest number of dropouts. They really
jiump moneys into the educational system there.
Illinois, ]\Iichigan, Florida, Maryland, where we have worked, are
down the list too far. And not to pick out regions, but you will find
a concentration of the power States, the Southern States, with ver\^
high dropout rates : a low rate as far as completion of high school. Un-
fortunately, many kids that don't finish high school end up in reform
schools, training schools — a better name, they are still reform schools.
]Many of them end up in prisons after that.
;Mr. McDoxALD. A^Hiat is the status in those Southern States and per-
hai^s Texas? ^Yhnt is the status of juvenile correctional institutions?
^[r. RoAVAX. In Texas, 254 counties, each operate their own proba-
tion department. Basically, there is no State juvenile probation system.
The high rate of commitment is to the Gatesville Boys' School, which
is made up of about eight institutions. I had the opportunity of study-
ino- it a couple of years ago very briefly. You can go on and on and on,
and I would say probably 40 States would fit into this category. Heavy,
heavy use of institutions and underdeveloped juvenile probation.
Mr. MrDox.'vLD. Is there a high incidence of brutality in those States ?
ISIr. RowAx. Yes, we encountered in this Gatesville Boys' School use
of T-adiator Inrushes, use of corporal punishment. And I wanted to state
earlier, which I think indicates some of the predicaments we are in,
if you talk with many professionals, they say you can't believe kids, but
T strongly support what INIr. Keller said and I will repeat.
806
In all of these studies, around 500 studies T liave been involved in in
institutions and other programs since 1055, I have never yet seen kids
lie on a pattern basis. The Federal courts upheld the kids in Indiana on
that appeal regarding- brutality there. One of the Eastern States, one
of the smaller ones, the attorney general's office ran polygrapli tests.
"\^nien we use a lie detector test, inmates arid kids will be telling the
truth when staff aren't.
Mr. McDonald. What is the problem in those States? ^Y\^J are they
lagging so far behind ?
Mv. RowAX. Tlie pu1:)lic demand is for punishment — lock tliom up,
throw the key awav. We were beating tlie people in the mental liealth
business. We beat the devil out of them. It was the way of curing men-
tally sick people many years ago. Thank God, we have gotten away
from that, but we are still doing it in the delinquency field in too many
places.
One of our studies — I am not going to mention the State because we
haven't verified it — showed they are beating kids in juvenile deten-
tion. We exposed this in Chicago in February witli our report on Andy
Home and our next report, issued soon, we will show that the beating
has stopped. We put the spotlight of attention on Andy Home in
Chicago, as we did several years ago. They have made improvement
there.
Mr. McDonald. Thank you very much.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Mann ?
Mr. Mann. No questions.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Rowan, just a few questions. "Wliat would
you, if you were a member of this committee, do with your knowledge
of the importance of this juvenile prol:)lem in the country and its rela-
tion to crime? "\^niat would you recommend to the Congress and the
country that the Federal Government do ? And we can also make recom-
mendations as to what the States should do. What sort of recommenda-
tion would you make ?
Mr. Rowan. None of the Safe Streets moneys should be put into pro-
grams which do not have a research component built into them before
the grant is given. The research component has got to come in with
the grant application.
Secondly, representative citizen advisory committees of at least 15
citizens from a distribution of agriculture, business, industry, labor,
law. and news media.
The third factor would be that administrators in this business have
got to be trained. They are not doing it anywhere in the country. We
are going to start with help from the Johnson Wax Foundation, the
first training program in this country for coirectional administrators
I know of, on citizen involvement and public education. That is go-
ing to be a five-State pilot program, at Wing Spread, in Racine, Wis.
We recommended this to LEAA several years affo but they never
followed up on it. None of the States I know of have ever trained
administrators on public involvement, how to work with the news
media, and so on. Until we do that, we are going to be talking to
ourselves.
Chairman Pepper. There are no programs now for the training of
juvenile administrators ?
807
Mv. RoAVAX. Not on how to work with tlie public, how to work with
newspapers, how to develop citizen advisory committees. I never got
it in school and I don't know of any universities that are training in
this ai-ea at all. We have public communications schools, sure. We have
journalism schools, lint they are not training correctional people.
So, in LEAA, the best dollar investment could be to train all of the
50 State administrators in hoAv to Avork with the public. Do what jNIr.
Keller is doing. He came from the news media field. He knows.
The legislature — and I saw the legislature in Florida — reacted to
his pi'ogram. They believe him. He knows how to get the story out.
He doesn't lie: he tells the bad along with the good; and he doesn't
pull any punches. I^ut few administrators, 9 out of 10, don't know how
to do this. Even when they have a lot of good things to tell the public
they don't go out and tell the public.
Chairman Pepper. Everybody, including the President, the Con-
gress, and the legislators, proclaims they are very much concerned
about crime and they want to do something to curb crime. How im-
portant in the curbing of crime do you consider this juvenile justice
program that we have been talking about ?
]Mr. RoAVAX. It is urgent.
The juvenile delinquenc}^ and dereliction we have in the country is
the most urgent problem. I agree with Mr. Keller, it is the No. 1 public
problem, domestically, we have in this country. It is the most urgent
because it affects our system of values, it affects our future as far as
the adult crime picture is concerned, and the eroding of our value
system. So I say it is No. 1 in this country.
Chairman Pepper. Would you include in such a program an effort to
try to reduce the number of school dropouts ?
]Mr. RowAx. Yes. I think that the urgent need is to support the new
Standard Juvenile Court Act, Avhich the National Council on Crime
and Delinquency will soon issue. There is going to be a lot of opposi-
tion to it. Judge Arthur alluded to it today. If that one single act is
supi)oi'ted, that could be the greatest stroke for juvenile justice in this
country.
Then it would force educational systems — and here again we are
talking about the jniblic — to put the spotlight an educational systems,
to make them more imaginatiA^e. One principal said, "I work Avith the
best and forget the rest." Well, this is what many educators feel. So,
along with inadequate home situations has to be placed inadequate
educational systems, as Pulitzer Prize Winner Louis Wille from the
Chicago Daih^ Ncavs pointed out. '
ChaiiTTian Pp:pper. Who Avill be pi'oposing that act ?
Mr. RoAVAX. The National Council on Crime and Delinquencv Avhich
is the biggest national standard setting agencA^ in this countrv. founded
in inOf). I worked Avith them for 7 j^ears. They are one of our com-
petitors.
Chairman Pepper. A priA'ate agency?
Ml-. RoAVAx. Private agency. They Avill be coming out Avith a Stand-
ard NeAv Juvenile Court Act remoAn'ng truancy from the juA^enile
court.
Chairman Pepper. When will that act be aA^iilable?
]\Ir. RoAA'AX. It is supposed to be 1973, Avithin the next several months.
808
Chairman Pepper, We certainly hope to see it as soon as it comes
i)ut. I would be very much interested in it.
Mr. IlowAis''. Mr. Milton Eector is the executive director.
Chairman Pepper. He is going to be testifying before this committee
on Thursday.
Mr. RowAK. Excellent.
Chairman Pepper. So we will be able to get advance information on
that from Mr. Rector.
Mr. Rowan. Right.
Chairman Pepper. Have you any figures you could give us that show
the significance of the necessity of proper treatment of juvenile delin-
quents or the juvenile perpetrators of crime, to the overall crime prob-
lem? Would you say most of the people who are in the penal institu-
tions for adults are people M'ho have juvenile crime experience? How
can you relate the one to the otlier ?
Mr. Rowan. There isn't any hard research to back this up, but from
our studies of prisons, where we interviewed prisoners, the majority
of people in adult institutions started out as juvenile delinquents.
Eighty percent of our crimes are committed by repeaters, and so it is
an endless cycle. It o-oes from dependency and neglect to delinquency,
to crime. It is a well-worn path.
Chairman Pepper. Do we assume from what you said that relatively
few people commit most of the crimes ?
Mr. Rowan. Yes ; 00 percent of our problems will come from 10 per-
cent of the peoDle, basically.
In the Bradley P>uell study many years ago, when you look across,
like in St. Paul, Minn., and t forgot where the other cities were, wel-
fare, mental health, corrections, all of the way across, 90 percent of
the problems from all of those agencies come from less than 10 percent
of the people.
Chairman Pepper. When I come to fully grasp the significance of
it, that, to me, is a fact of enormous importance. It gives us place to
concentrate instead of sr'atterinq- out- shot^ everywhere; if we can just
concentrate on that problem of trying to prevent the recidi\asm we
now have it would enormouslv reduce crime in tlie country ; wouldn't
it?
INIr. Rowan. It would, and I think Milt Rector, when he testifies
Thursday, will cite a study in Michigan — I haven't read it yet — ^but
kids t]iat are not brought into the juvenile justice system, even though
tliev commit a delinquent act, wore found by. I think, professors at the
University of Michigan in a research iiroject. to be better off than
kids that were brought in the system. So getting caught is the first
start of difiicultv with many kids. They are brought into a system by
well-intentioned people and they end up in prison, eventually.
We talk — and it is a paradox — about developing services for early
detention, early referral, early diagnosis, early treatment. Yes and
no, we have to evaluate it. In this coui^^^rv, accordinff to th" latest
statistics, 45 percent of the kids nationallv reported to HEW from
the 50 States are still handled formally by judges. Our fcelins:, our
agency recommends, at least 75 percent of the kids that come into
intake, referred by the police, never need to go to the judge.
I was glad to hear Judge Arthur today say he feels as many kids as
possi]:)le should not come into the juvenile court. Now, he has changed
809
his mind more toward my thinking in the last 5 years, since I haven't
seen him that long.
Cliairman Pepper. How do we get them into the youth services au-
thority without them going through the court ?
Mr. KowAN. Well, what is happening in Florida today, is Mr.
Keller's staff interviews the youngster right away and talks with
him and they see if they can give him help without formally going
through the court system. So in Florida they are screening about two-
thirds of the kids.
Chairman Pepper. How do they know of tlie arrest of the child?
jSIr. Rowan. The police will arrest them and bring them down to
the detention home and intake staff will interview them and the intake
staff will screen them out and the judge will onl}^ see those that end up
down liere after the funnel ing process.
Cliairman Pepper. Bnt does the judge refer them to the 3'outh
services administration ?
Mr. Rowan. The judge doesn't get at them until later. In other
words, the police arrest them tonight; they are taken to the detention
home ; the}- are screened within 24 hours by the intake staff in Florida,
which is the only State I know that has it statewide; and if that
youngster is referred to a private agency or goes back to school, the
intake staff may make some contact with the family. The judge never
sees them. The judge has no involvement.
Chairman Pepper. What is the authority of the youth services ad-
ministration to do that ?
Mr. Rowan. The State law. The State laws allow this in most States.
The legislature has passed the laws in Florida and other States saying
that cases can be diverted at intake without going formally into the
court. So 55 percent are handled this way nationally now.
Chairman Pepper. By the way, what is the nature of the institution
for youth at Marianna, Fla. ? That used to be the main home for youth
care ? "Wliat sort of institution is it now ?
Mr. Rowan. It is a big institution, but you would have to really go
there to see and feel this climate of the guided group interaction
program.
Chairman Pepper. Are they required to stay there by force ?
Mr. Rowan. Yes. It is an open institution, but the interesting thing
is when we were in Florida this summer they went for several weeks
with zero runaways from most institutions.
Chairman Pepper. It is not a security institution now ?
Mr. Rowan . It is still the institution as before, but no kids are run-
ning away from it.
Chairman Pepper. But they are not locked in? They are not con-
j&ned now ?
Mr. Rowan. As you develop the guided group interaction program,
doors are unlocked as they were at Red Wing. In other words, better
staff and that group counseling, the peer pressures, take the place of
the locks and the keys.
Chairman Pepper. That is very good. I am pleased to hear that.
Mr. Rowan. That is the same thing that happened in St. Louis un-
der the home detention program that I mentioned earlier, vrhich may
have been lost in the discussion. But 10 kids escaped from the security
810
detention home with the lock and kev, while of 308 kids out in the
community not one ran awa}'.
Chairman Pepper. You said you need training programs for youth
services administrators in certain areas. Do we need training programs
for juvenile judges in the country ?
JNIr. Rowan. Yes. Judge Arthur couldn't speak as frankly as I can.
Pie is the president of the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges
and one of the best in the business. What he was saying does not con-
ti'adict what I say. They are woefull}^ inadequate. The training is
clirely needed for juvenile court judges throughout the country. No-
body wants to be a juvenile court judge.
I am overemphasizing to get across the point. But judges rotate on
the juvenile bench. The}' don't rotate other places. Nobody wants to
be a juvenile court judge, and I say that from years of experience in
the business and talking with juvenile court judges.
It is too hard on them. The Saturday E\'ening Post, about 15 years
ago, ran a special article on "Why Judges Don't Sleep." But if they
had training they could sleep better.
Chairman Peppek. In Florida, we just have two kinds of courts for
the trial of cases. One is the county court and the other is the circuit
court, which is a court of general jurisdiction.
Mr. EowAx. Yes.
Chairman Pepper. For the major civil and major criminal cases. So
the county judges perform juvenile judge functions. They have to be
lawyers and qualified as judges. And the circuit judges may also dis-
pense that sort of justice.
We do have a training program for circuit judges, trial judges, in
New Mexico, I believe it is. So we ought to have training programs for
juvenile judges.
Mr. RowAisr. Very much so. It is direly needed. There is training in
other areas, but in the juvenile court area, not much. Maryland just
formed a juvenile court judges association on our recommendation.
That was one of our reconmienclations and they organized that in De-
cember or January.
Chairman Pepper. The last question is. "V^Tiat in your opinion would
l)e desirable for the Federal Government to do in respect to the pro-
visions of funds ? You say that will be set out in the bill that is coming
from the National Council of Juvenile Delinquency and Crime ?
]Mr. Rowan. Yes.
Chairman Pepper. If you didn't hear it, you heard some of us say
that Dr. Miller yesterday spoke about using the $2 million LEAA
grant to get the new system inaugurated in Massachusetts. Other
witnesses have indicated the States would need some empirical help
from the Federal Government to transform the system from the old
to tlie new.
Would 5^ou recommend Federal financing as highly necessary or
desirable ?
JNIr. RowAx. The National Council on Crime and Delinquency and
our organization both support the concept for the time being," until
community-based programs are developed, that no more moneys be put
into new institutions, adult or juvenile. Sure, we have some terrible
institutions throughout the country, but much more terrible com-
munity-based programs or not at all. So I support the same approach
811
that the National Council does, that LEA A moneys for the next sev-
eral years should not go into bricks and mortar.
Chairman PEPrER. But you don't apply that prohibition to pro-
grams such as Mr. Keller described ?
Mr. EowAX. right.
Chairman Pepper. Essentially, as they have in Massachusetts?
Mr. RowAx. Staff and institutions, yes, and moneys in community-
based programs ; but no bricks and mortar moneys for the next 5 years.
It will take at least that long to develop programs in institutions, which
will mean staff and then community-based programs.
Chairman Pepper. The prohibition of any funds. State or Federal,
to build any huge State incarceration institutions, such as the things
we have at Attica, and Raiford, Fla. I said publicly the best thing that
could happen to those institutions would be to burn down.
Mr. Row^Ax. Right. Bulldozed.
Chaimian Pepper. Bulldoze them so we can start anew. I wonder if
it wouldn't be desirable for the Federal Government to propose to
States that they would pay half of the cost of building these small in-
stitutions— I am talking about for adults now, the ones that need to
be incarcerated in the security institution — not to exceed 300 popula-
tion ; and put them in the cities where the inmates come from, so they
can see their families there and get jobs there when they become
eligible for employment and the like.
Would you say that is desirable from the viewpoint of adult insti-
tutions?
Mr. RowAX. Yes. The Federal Government can best help from the
standpoint of setting standards and guides, and providing special
services wliich States cannot provide. That is the major role the Fed-
eral Govermnent should be doing. And here, again, we and the Na-
tional Council agree that the Federal Bureau of Prisons really should
get out of the prison-building business.
I know I will inherit some more enemies from this discussion, but
the Federal Government, we feel — and by "we," I mean the National
Council on Crime and Delinquency, Mr. Rector can speak for him-
self— oppose the development of the Federal Detention Center in
Chicago ; also Miami, they are going to build one ; New York, also.
We feel the Federal Government can best use its money in local
facilities and get out of the business of building Federal prisons in
places like California, where they have closed six institutions or parts
of them, and yet the Federal Government is building Federal prisons
out there.
Chairman Pepper. Do you recommend the Federal Government use
the local facilities ?
Mr. RowAx. Right. Definitely. I think the Federal Bureau of
Prisons should get out of the prison-building-and-management busi-
ness and lend support from the standpoint of standards and practices
and guidelines and all the rest along that line — none for mortar and
brick.
Chairman Pepper. And the Federal Government would pay the
local authorities for the handling of their personnel ?
Mr. RowAX. Right. It would be a lot better. I Imow their argument
Norman Carlson spoke before the board of directors and wanted to
rebut the director of N.C.C.D., who spoke earlier and said the State
812
programs don't meet standards ; ^Ye don't want to put Federal prisoners
in them. That is the chicken and the egg argument. The Federal Gov-
ernment can put money in the programs and de^-elop them so they will
be good enough for all prisoners. State as well as Federal.
Chairman Pepper. That is a good idea. It is a good way to induce
the Federal Government to do it. It certainly is.
Mr. EowAN. The same with juveniles. The Federal Government
doesn't prosecute many juveniles because they don't want to get into
that type of institutional program. They can do the same for adults,
get out of that area.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Rowan, we may be calling on you to help
us with our report.
Mr. Rowan. We would be very happ}'. I feel there would be no
better time that I can spend than in that area.
Chairman Pepper. We certainly thank you for the contribution you
made here today.
The committee will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
Mr. Rowan. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 5 :40 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene
at 10 a.m., on Wednesday, April 18, 1973.]
STREET CRIME IX AMERICA
(Corrections Approaches)
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 1973
House of Representatives,
Select Committee ox Crime,
Washington^ B.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :10 a.m., in room 311,
Cannon House Office Building, the Honorable Claude Pepper (chair-
man) presiding.
Present: Representatives Pepper, Rangel, Wiggins, Winn, and
Sandman.
Also present: Chris Nolde, chief counsel; Richard Lynch, deputy
chief counsel ; James McDonald, assistant coimsel ; and Leroy Bedell,
hearing officer.
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
We would appreciate it if the witness. Dr. Sarri, will come forward.
Mr. Lynch, will you proceed, please.
Mr. Lynch. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
]\Ir. Chairman, Dr. Sarri, with the University of Michigan, is the
codirector of a project called "National Assessment of Juvenile Cor-
rections." She also teaches in the School of Social Work at the Univer-
sity of Michigan, and holds a Ph. D. in sociology. Paul Isenstadt, who
is accompanying her this morning, is the senior field director for the
National Assessment of Juvenile Corrections at the University of
Michigan.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROSEMARY SARRI, CODIRECTOR, NATIONAL
ASSESSMENT OF JUVENILE CORRECTIONS, UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR, MICH., ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL ISEN-
STADT, SENIOR FIELD DIRECTOR
It is obvious to nearly everyone that the juvenile justice system is
falling short of its dual objections : Serving the best interests of in-
dividual youth while contributing to public safety by controlling and
reducing youthful crime. The reports about substantial increases in
crime among juveniles has resulted in mounting pressures on law
enforcement, judicial, and correctional personnel to do something
about adolescent lawbreakers. Just what the public wants done, how-
ever, is not clear for two contradictoi-y demands are heard. On the
one hand, those who officially deal with delinquents — police, juvenile
court judges, probation and parole workers, and correctional officers —
(813)
95-158 — 7S — ijt. 2 12
814
are told to get tough, to remove law violators from the community,
and to punish in order to teach wayward youth a lesson, and to deter
potential violators from committing delinquent acts. Simultaneously,
they are also told to reform the delinquent, to treat him with humane-
ness, fairness, and justice, and to remove him from the community
onl}^ as a last resort. Because the pmiishment message from the public
has been stronger than rehabilitation message, and partly because
juvenile courts have punished while intending to refomi, official re-
sponses to delinquency most often have resulted in stigmatization,
locking-out, punitive coercion, and education in crime. Instead the
emphasis must be on increased opportunity for legitimate success,
development of personal resources and the inculcation of pro-legal
identihcations, images, and associations. The most visible manifesta-
tion of such patterns is institutionalization of a juvenile in a public
training school, often by means of questionable legal or quasi-legal
procedures and often for acts that would not be violations of the law
if they had been committed by an adult.
It is frequently asserted that children are the most valuable resource
of this society, but with millions processed throvigh the juvenile jus-
tice system in ways which inhibit their ability to function effectively
in the society, one inevitably questions how this resource is treatecl.
Necessary as the ejfforts are to strengthen and broaden law enforce-
ment, drastic improvements are needed in education, employment,
housing, race relations, and opportunities for youth to participate
meaningfully in the society if we are to ameliorate the conditions that
generate pressures toward crime. Apprehension and physical removal
of the lawbreaker from the community may eliminate his or her ability
to commit crimes, but these efforts are not likely to have any perma-
nent positive impact unless societal conditions associated with crime
are modified. The policy implication is that prevention of delinquency
or criminal behavior must be the primary target for change. Until now
Ave have focussed almost all effort on delinquents who are already ap-
prehended and processed through the system, while recognizing that
they commit only a small i:)roportion of the total amount of juvenile
crime.
The winds of change, however, are apparent in juvenile corrections
due to the convergence of several factors : Discontent among juvenile
correctional personnel with the relative ineffectiveness of their efforts
thus far; advancements in knowledge about new approaches to correc-
tional rehabilitation; high and rapidly increasing costs of incarcerat-
ing— public institutional care as high as $36,000 per child per year in
some States — and last but not least, more widespread concern about
justice, due process, and protection of the rights of juveniles in the
justice system processing. One of the significant constraints on innova-
tion and change is the lack of readily available knowledge about the
operations of the system as well as a lack of systematic and ongoing
research evaluation of programs.
The national assessment of juvenile corrections is a research effort
supported, by a grant from the National Institute of Law Enforcement
and Criminal Justice of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administra-
tion. Its objective is to complete a systematic assessment of existing
organizational patterns and service delivery, of legal provisions, of
alternative programs, and of general offender career patterns. As
policy-related research it aims to point out contradictory values and to
815
increase public awareness that attempts to pursue rehabilitative and
punishment goals simultaneously often become self-defeating. Within
this context, the project is attempting to identify the range and variety
of policies and programs, their relative ell'ectiveness, and how specific,
more effective changes can be brought about. The principal policy is-
sues related to dispositional alternatives that are being studied include :
1. What are the relative merits of different traditional and innova-
tive correctional programs for (a) developing positive change in
juveniles during their participation in the program, (b) protecting the
community in the short run, (c) providing humane living conditions,
and (d) enhancing subsequent nonviolative behavior in the
community.
2. Under what conditions— type of offense, characteristics of of-
fender, type of community, type of State— should different disposi-
tional alternatives be employed ?
n. What kinds of results can be expected from varying levels of ex-
penditure among alternative programs ?
To formulate a better defined basis for categorization and study,
we have developed a typology- of the major functions performed by
different agencies within juvenile justice systems— a typology that
can be substantiated or modified by empirical observations. Orga-
nizations are distinguished in terms of their primary functions:
Prevention and social control, for example, youth service bureaus and
community diversion units; identifying and nominating youth as of-
fenders, for example, police and school referral units; processing and
referring offenders, for example, court intake, diagnostic services ; ad-
judicating offenders, for example, juvenile courts; containing and con-
trolling offenders, for example, detention facilities, jails, custodial in-
stitutions, some probation and parole services ; treating offenders, for
example, some probation services, community-based programs, some
rehabilitative institutions; and, reentry for offenders, for example,
some parole services, work release, job placement, some ex-offender or-
ganizations. This typology facilitates differentiation between units
having the same general labels, but who may employ contrasting tech-
nologies or whose intended purposes are clearly different.
TRENDS IX JUVEXILE CORRECTIOXS : STATUTORY CHAXGE
The first trend that we wish to call to your attention today is of par-
ticular interest to legislators — that is. State statutes which govern the
processing of juveniles into, through, and out of the juvenile justice
system. One of the first activities undertaken when the national assess-
ment of juvenile corrections began was an investigation of juvenile
law in the 50 States and District of Columbia as it pertained to the
definition, processing, disposition, and rehabilitation of juveniles. We
needed to be better informed about juvenile statutory provisions gov-
erning courts and correctional units in order to design methodologies,
procedures, and instruments for the assessment of service units in the
various States. A second reason for the study was to determine the ex-
tent to which statutes changed in response to the requirements formu-
lated by the Supreme Court in the Gault decision of 10G7. We learned
that between 1968 and 1972 a total of 33 States made major changes in
the juvenile codes ; many of these changes pertained to due process pro-
visions to court stiTictures and to age definitions.
816
The juvenile court "vvas created primarily to serve the interests of
tlie child b.Y invoking protective po^yer of the State and by providing-
treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment. In theory, the
juvenile court was to intervene for reliabilitative rather than punitive
purposes, to avoid stigmatizing labels, and to seek to treat eacli child
in an individually helpful way. We surveyed the statutes to determine
the extent to which they actually reflect this societal mandate for
without it one could not expect consistency in the types of programs
provided and in the processing procedures. Our findings from exami-
nation of statutes of the 50 States and the District of Columlua indi-
cate that there is great variation among the States in most of the major
dimensions that we studied: jurisdiction of the juvenile court, defini-
tions of delinquency, prescribed aiid proscribed procedures for legal
processing of juveniles from initial arraigimient througli post-dis-
positional decisions ; court structure and staffing ; detention ; specifica-
tion of offenders' rights and, due process ]:>rovisions : disposition altei--
natives, and the limits of discretion. These variations extend within
the States in several instances where there are variable provisions and
structures in different counties.
Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have left to the States to
decide the crucial question of who is a child and therefore who can
be denied full constitutional protections and who cannot. It is not
surprising that federalism has produced dramatic diffei-ences. Here
we can onlv discuss a few of these differences. For exam)>lo. which
children will be ])rocessed in the juvenile court and which will go
through the criminal system as adults is basically the function of
three statutory variables: age, seriousn.ess of oifense, and grounds
for transfer to the criminal system. In 34 States and the District of
Columbia the maximum age for children is IT; in 10 States it is 16,
and in the remaining 6 it is 15 years. But age is only one aspect of
the definition. Some States retain sex differences even thou<rh they
are now of questionable legality; others have complex and elalxirate
stipulations governing transfer procedures; others exclude certain se-
rious offenses from the court's jurisdiction. Very few States have
clear and unambiguous provisions necessary for the effective adminis-
tration of justice in courts which are overwhelmed by large numbers
of referrals and limited staff resources.
Another area that highlights some of the problems in juvenile stat-
utes in the States today are the provisions governing the detention
of youth. Most statutes recommend against placement of juveniles in
jail, but in only five States is there an aiilight prohibition. The kind
of facility in which a juvenile is detained is determined, in large part,
by State statutes, so if the State places strict prohibitions on the
placement of juveniles in jails or lockups, counties will be forced to
provide alternative detention facilities or not detain children at all.
The majority of States have statutes that permit the detention and/
or jailing of juveniles although they recommend against overuse of
such provision. Because of the loopholes and broad provisions, it is
not surprising that nearly half a million children are held in deten-
tion within a year in the "United States and more than 100.000 spend
time in jail. In fact, in a number of States children may even be sen-
tenced to jail as a disposition. Few juvenile codes contain provisions
guaranteeing that a detention hearing must be held within a specified
period of time after detention or that probable cause or likelihood of
court appearance are to be the primary factors in determining whether
817
or not a juvenile is held. Thus, it is not surprising that in many States
research has shown that status offenders, espccialh' females, ai'e de-
tained more often and for a ionger period of time than are males or
juveniles who are charged A\ith property offenses or crimes against
i^ersons. Obviously, if justice is to be administered equitably and under
conditions where accountability is to be maintained, statutes nnist be
more explicit and delimited in the discretion that is permitted.
Perhaps the juvenile code provisions that result in the greatest
miscarriage of justice are those which define the areas of behavior
that the juvenile court may regulate. All 51 jurisdictions bring into the
purview of tlie court conduct which, if engaged in b\' an adult, would
bring legal action. But, in addition, all the States also permit the court
to intervene with behavior that is not illegal for adults — i.e., truancy,
incorrigibility, running away, immorality, disobedience, promiscuity,
or even just "idling."' While all States hav^e status offenses, as these
latter behaviors are usually termed, there is considerable variation as
to how they are treated legally, llecently, many States have adopted
special legislation governing the processing of these ''children in need
of supervision'' (CIXS). Twenty-six States now have special categor-
ies for these juveiiiles, many of which require that they be referred for
service outside the juvenile justice system— i.e., the State social services
department. It is debatable, however, whether these provisions are suf-
ficient to divert youth from the system for there is often some way of
transforming them from a status offender to a delinquent after the
second or third misbehavior. In one State with a separate category for
status offender, 80 percent of the institutionalized girls were truants,
runaAvays, or ungovernables. In another nearly 70 percent of all institu-
tionalized girls were status offenders. Furthermore, it was not unusual
to observe that females had longer periods of institutionalization than
male juveniles who had committed more serious offenses
In 41 jurisdictions there is no requirement that there be separation
of dependent and neglected children from delinquent children in the
detention facility. At disposition 17 States allow delinquents and de-
pendent and neglected children to be housed together. Because of vague
provisions in the definition of who is a delinquent and governing the
separation (of delinquents) from other children with social problems
such as dependency and neglect, it is not surprising that they are found
together not only in detention facilities and jails but also in private
institutions and training schools. In several States large numbers of
mentally retarded children were observed in the same institution with
delinquent youth, with little or no variation in their program experi-
ence.
The most glaring feature of the juvenile codes is their ambiguity and
deliberate grants of unlimited discretion. This permits gross incon-
sistency in the administration of justice. Although well-drawn statutes
cannot insure the appropriate processing of juveniles in the justice
system, it is unlikely that improper practices will be eliminated on a
consistent basis without explicit statutory requirements. Many of the
definitions and provisions contained in the recently introduced S. 821,
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1072, are of
the order of specificity to constrain inconsistent practices and the over-
use of criminal sanctions.
Overreach of the law and overuse of criminal sanctions continue in
many States despite their relative ineffectiveness in achieving the goals
desired and in spite of the fact that they tend to have negative sec-
818
ondary and tertiary consequences. Many years ago, Roscoe Pound
expressed grave reservations over the extent to winch the education,
health, and morals of youth have come under the jurisdiction of tlie
juvenile court. When these problems are written into statutes as a basis
for State intervention, parents, neighbors, schools, and social agencies
are encouraged to avoid or refer their problems rather than to try to
solve them.
Many students of juvenile justice have also recommended decrim-
inalization not only of status offenses, but also of victimless crimes. In
few States, however, have we observed any concerted drive in this di-
rection for juveniles. In fact, there is some evidence tliat far more is
being acconiplished in decriminalization of behavior for adults than
juveniles when a convincing argument could be made that decriminal-
ization is even more urgently needed for juveniles. The objective of tlie
system must be to minimize negative labelino-, overuse of criminal
sanctions, and intensification of State intervention.
INSTITUTIONALIZATION
A second trend, which is readily observed in soine States and fre-
quently discussed in most, is the reduction in institutional commit-
ment, particularly commitment to public State fncilities. Our research
is concentrated on 10 States which were selected probabilistically, tak-
ing into consideration changes in admissions to State institutions in
1966 and 1971. along with several other factors. Admission rates were
selected as criteria because we assumed that they provided the best
indicators of statewide practices. Moreover, changes in these rates en-
courage attention to questions of diversion from the justice system and
alternatives to incarceration.
It is generally thought that there has been in recent yeai-s and con-
tinues to be a substantial reduction in the institutionalization of juve-
niles. Fortunately, data about admissions to State institutions were
available from the U.S. Children's Bureau for 1966 and from a LEA A-
sponsored studv for 1971. Admission rates Avere obtained bv comDuting
the numbers of admissions as a nroportion of the juvo^iile popula-
tion 5 to 17 years in each State. Findings from this analysis revealed
marked variations amontr the States. The total number of admissions
in 1966 varied from 9.158 youth in one State to 60 in another State.
By 1971 that State with the largest number of admissions had dropped
to 8.751, aiid the Stnte with the lowest number admitted 50 youth.
'\^nien rates (per 10.000 youths 5 to 17 years of age) were calculated,
we observed a variation for 1966 l^etween 2.71 and ?>0.90 in the lowest
and highest States. The corresponding statistics for 1971 were 2.45
and 39.66. Thus, the lower end showed relative stability, but there
was a substantial increase in admissions in the highest rate State.
States were then arraved to ascertain the national pattern and dif-
ference scores were calculated. Rate changes in admission were found
to vary from an increase of 15.96 to a decrease of 12.14 per 10,000
youth in the highest and lowest States. These rate chanq-es indicated
the direction and velocitv of change in the 5-year period. In ranking
the States to determine increasing or decreasing rates of admission
to State institutions, certain arbitrary points were established since
we wished to differentiate those States which were relatively stable
with respect to admissioi\ Thus, those which had rate change from
+ 1.5 to — 1.5 were considered "neutral" or stable, while those with
819
positive change (o-reater tliaii +1.5) weiv inci-easing and tlio^^c with
negative change (below —1.5) were considered as decreasing in ad-
missions. The final ranking indicated tliat 15 States liad increasing
lates of admissions: 15 States remained the same; and 20 States had
decreasing rates of admissions to State institutions. Thus, the national
picture is one of decreasing institutionalization, but the change is
neither radical nor precipitous. Our field observations indicate that
there continues to be a reduction in admissions in many States, but
others are reporting increases, so it is })robable that the pattern would
be essentially the same if it were duplicated toda}-.
It must be emphasized that these changes in admission patterns apply
only to public State institutions. There is widespread use of local
public institutions and of pri^•ate institutions, so we cannot state for
cei-tain that there has been a reduction in the total amount of insti-
tutionalization of juveniles. The patterns suggest that there is a shift
to the use of local facilities that permit families to remain in closer
contact with their children and make it possible for the program to be
more closely related to the culture and interests of the youth who are
served in such agencies. Large conirregate facilities in rural areas far
from the homes of most of the institution's juveniles increasingly are
being eliminated as dysfunctional for the rehabilitation of urban youth.
DI\TERSION
A third trend, which we have observed in all regions of the country,
is an increase in programing directed toward diversion from the juve-
nile justice system or ''minimization of penetration'' into the ju^■enile's
life. Such efforts to direct vouth from the criminal justice svstem
reflect growing recognition that stringent intervention into the lives
of 3'outh will only stigmatize and further entangle them into deviant
identities and associations. In several States that have agencies with
broad mandates to deal with social control of juveniles the following-
tripartite plans have been designed: (1) Delinquency prevention pro-
grams aimed at the entire risk-prone adolescent population; (2) diver-
sion services for predelinquent youth and status offenders; and (3)
rehabilitation programs for those adjudicated for law violations.
We have just completed some research that examined diversionary
effort after initial court contact and prior to adjudication. We recogn-
ized that the bulk of diversion has been and will continue to be by
})olice because they select out for further processing only a small pro-
[)ortion of the juveniles with whom they have contact. Their utiliza-
tion of counseling, informal recording of juvenile contacts, direct in-
tervention with families, and ignoring of incidents results in the
identification onl}' a small proportion of juveniles for any further
intervention.
Our examination of diversion activity began at the point of court
contact because that is a crucial threshold with long-term consequejices.
Two characteristics stood out in the several connnunities in one State
in which this study was completed, and we have no reason to beliexc
that these findings were unique to that State. Diversion is an am-
biguous and ill-detined term Avhose meaning not oidy varies l)etween
States, but within States and within communities. In the connnunities
in which our observations were made rarely did even a minority of the
probation officers within a unit agree as to what diversion is all about.
Some referred to it as exclusixely in the intake process; others defined
820
it as occurring anytime up to adjudication, and still others referred
to divei'sion in conjunction with disposition. Some interpreted referral
to an ancillary community resource as representing a failure on the
part of their court's services. All agreed that intake officers exercised
great discretion in the choice of diversion "tracks'' — home, school,
social agency, police, and so forth.
Ideally, diversion means referral out of the system to a person,
group or organization that can provide services needed and desired
by the youth. But many communities lack alternative service pro-
grams; intake officers are not knowledgeable about community re-
sources; therefore, the usual pattern of response is "Counseled,
Warned, and Released.''
Our lesearch, although incomplete, indicates that there is a press-
ing need for the study of careers of juveniles who are diverted. Infor-
mation is woefullv lacking about the similarities and differences
between youth who are held and those who are diverted. If diversion
is generally quicker, cheaper, and more humane, why does traditional
processing of youth continue at the same le\el in so many communi-
ties ? Local agencies we observed kept no records about those who were
di\'erted ; thus, any information about outcomes or recidivision were
sheer guesses.
The faddist nature of divei'sion has resulted in a proliferation of
diversion units within and without the juvenile court. But, no one has
taken a close look at whether or not the juvenile subject to this effort
is receiving a better deal. Participating personnel merely may have
revamped terminology and procedures without seriously altering what
happens to a jmenile.
In communities where the youth service bureaus and similar agen-
cies are linked closely to the juvenile court, the linkage mechanism may
lead to the involvement of many youth in a quasi-legal experience for
behavior which would not Imxe been acted upon in this manner had
this interorganizational arrangement not existed. If diversion is going
to accomplish the objective of referral out of the juvenile justice sys-
tem, then it is probable that there must be a clear separation of the
agencies providing diversionary services from the court. Our research
also indicated the frequent use of informal probation for predelin-
quent behavior. It was achieved through an informal type of plea
bargaining whereby the youth and/or his parents agreed to certain
service requirements in return for not being formally processed. How-
ever, the utilization of informal probation lacked any adherence to the
rights of vouth and instead implied an adjudication of delinquency
without any formal adjudication procedure. In fact, the original
cliai-ge Avjis lield in abevance contingent upon the juvenile meeting the
often varied expectations of probation staff. Expectations ranged from
tight controls inherent in formal probation supervision to noninvolve-
ment with the juvenile unless he became engaged in deviant behavior.
Court staff showed little concern about the rights of these youth or
about the long-term consequenr>es of this decision should the youth
subsequently get into further difficulty.
COMMUNITY-BASED INTERVENTION
Disenchantment with institutionalization of juveniles in training
schools is widespread, as we pointed out earlier, and has led to substan-
tial reduction in institutional population in a number of States. This
821
disencliantment has led to a less than critical acceptance of noninstitu-
tional alternatives as more effective despite the lack of evidence
about community treatment programs. Much more needs to be known
about the comparative outcomes of different models under different
community conditions and with different types of offenders. We are
seeking to meet this need at least partially by carrying out comparative
studies of the nature, operation, and impact of a variety of community-
based programs.
The concept communitj^-basod treatment is also ambiguous and
means different things in different locations. Community ti'eatment
has been applied to probation, which is, in fact, the type of service
program in which are found the largest numbers of adjudicated juve-
nile offenders in all of the States. Also included under the community
treatment umbrella are aftercare and parole programs which bridge
the gap between the institution and i-eturn to one's role in the com-
munity. However, probation and aftercare, often replete with large
caseloads, continue to utilize fairly traditional approaches to working
with offenders.
Community treatment has also Iiecome semantic trivia for locally
based residential programs whose philosophies and treatment tech-
nology are representative of the traditional training school-institu-
tional model, but whose physical location is in an urban community,
the sole determinant in identifying the program as community based.
Within the past decade, there has been considerable innovation in
what we are calling local intensive intervention programing. Botli
residential and nonresidential day treatment programs would fall
in this category, including units referred to as group homes, halfway
houses, community residential treatment, day care, group foster care,
and semi-institutional or open cottage living. The essential defining
characteristic is that there be frequent and continuing interaction
with elements of community life appropriate for the particular age
group in the unit.
We are now at the halfwa^^ point in the study of a sample of local
intensive community programs, and have completed a census of the
programs in the 16 sample States where extensive field data are being
collected. Because these States were selected probabilistically, we
have reason to believe that their programs are representative of the 50
States. Ultimately, we expect to prepare a census of the programs
throughout the United States. Our research indicates, fii-st of all, in-
formation about these programs is lacking within and between States,
despite their popularity at the present time. Second, community-based
programs are not randomly distributed throughout the States. We
have identified a total of 288 local intensive intervention units for
juvenile offenders in the 16 States. Of these 48 are day ti-eatment,
nonresidential programs, and 245 are group or foster homes and
various types of residential treatment, with the former the larger
number of the two types of residential units. Although there appears
to be a notion that local community programs are small and rv^latively
intimate, our information indicates that they varv widely in size.
Day treatment units varied between 10 and 85 youth per unit with a
mean size of 25. Residential programs (probably because they were
dominated 1)V group and foster homes) are slightly smaller with a
mean size of 6 and a range from 3-54. These community programs
822
are concentrated in a few States, for in tlie sample of 16 States, there
Avere 9 States which did not have any day care procrrams and 1
M'hich did not have a residential community program. The average
number of day treatment programs was just under 3 per State, whereas
the average number of residential programs was slightly over 15, but
the range was from none in 1 State to 55 in another State.
Great variation exists in the type of program and in the auspices
under which they operate. The foster group home and the group home,
as previously noted, noi-mally represent the smaller residential facil-
ity. The foster group home may house one to four individuals, Avhile
the group home accommodates a population normally not exceeding
eight residents. (The exact size is primarily determiiied by State li-
censing statutes.) The philosoi^hy of the group home or foster home is
often designed to create '"a stable family life setting" supportive to
individual residents, and permitting them to engage in varied com-
munity activities, that is. school, job training, employment, and recre-
ation. Although States may operate numerous group home and foster
group home programs under a uniform legislative mandate, the treat-
ment philosophies, custodial philosophies, and utilization of com-
munity resources in reality are not uniform.
The grou}> home or group foster home, by nature of ininimal pro-
gram design, minimal staffing needs, and minimal financial allocations,
ap):)oars to be the first program design initiated bv States with no
existing coimnunity-based programs for juveniles. Since many foster
group homes and group liomes are located in rural areas and su-
burban areas, and most delinquents are from ui-ban areas phvsically
and culturally distant from the ])lacement, ties with family, relatives,
and significant otliei's are widened. With the termination of legal juris-
diction, the juvenile is often forced to leave the foster or grou]) home,
and return to his home and associations without any preparation for
reentry. For the urban minority vouth, mIio compose a disproportion-
ate number of our juvenile justice system, the lifestyle is often in-
conirruous and only makes reintegration into the urban world more
diffi'^'uH. Race or ethnic oi-ioin often prevent the urban youth from
remaining in the location of his placement after discharge since min-
imal educational or vocational opportunities exist there. It is increas-
ingly important that grou?) foster homes and group homes be located
in urban areas when placement in the juvenile's own home is not
feasible. Obstacles such as zoning limitations, neighborhood concerns,
and scho<:»l resistance must be dealt with. The utilization of neighbor-
hood personnel in the planning and operation of group homes, as is
the case in model cities programs, is a developing trend which openly
breaks down community resistance.
The communitv treatment facility with the most imblicized histor-
ical precedent is the halfwav house or grou]3 care facility. The halfway
house or group care facility normallv will accommodate 8-30 youths.
Although initially conceived as "stepping stone'' between the institu-
tion and the community, a recent trend has evolved which identifies it
as a diversification program for individuals who normally would be
committed to a ti-aditional State training school progi'am, but who are
felt capable of being maintained in the communitv. Strong involve-
ment with community services, that is. school, work, and recreation are
often coupled with programs within the residential facility utilizing
vai'ious treatment technologies.
823
Halfway houses and gToup care facilities operate under State, local,
and private auspices. Federal matching grants, such as title I, Omni-
bus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, become a source of mitial
revenue, although State, local or private bodies must eventually as-
sume total fiscal responsibility for program operation. The initial
growtli of both proprietary ])rograms, as well as nonprofit corporate
facilities, exists disproportionately in States which are able to purchase
services for juveniles identified as State wards.
Group care facilities and halfway houses are more often located in
urban and suburban metropolitan 'areas. Depending on budget allo-
cation, the treatment program may range from a loose, unstructured
program whose major emphasis is facilitating youth movement into
school, work, or other legitimate roles, to highly structured, residential
programs Avith treatment technologies so structured that admission
criteria often are highly selective. "Often excluded are aggressive or
mentallv retarded youth who. by lack of alternative placements, are
connnitted to traditional training school programs ill-equipped to deal
with tlieir behavior. It also appears that group care or halfway house
facilities are primarily located in State's which emphasize a strong
community orientatioii to juvenile corrections, and who openly rec-
ognize the'limitations of the traditional State training school concept.
The semiinstitutional or open cottage living program often rep-
resents the largest community-based program, possibly numbering as
many as 50 residents. It is this prooram which often develops an an-
cillary day treatment program for juveniles who are able to function
at home, but whose behavioral i)roblems often relate to school, or voca-
tional, performance. The philosophy of avoiding the depersonalization
of any residential placement for youtli who can be maintained in his
home is a basic premise in the operation of these and other day treat-
ment facilities.
There is much discussion alwut the feasilnlity of an agency operat-
ing both i-esidential and nonresidential programs under the same ad-
ministrative structure. StatT effort and program impact are often di-
re^'ted primarily toward the residential population, with the result
that the day treatment participants are labeled as second-class citizens.
Separation of day treatment' programs from residential programs
seems desirable if "greater impact is to be made in program planning
for the particular needs of these youth. The fact that 9 of the 16
sample States have no day treatment programs indicates that this type
of intervention is greatly underdeveloped; yet, it is relatively inex-
pensive when compared with residential programs and provides the
opportunity to deal continuously with the problems which have con-
tributed to the delinquent behavior.
Community-based in'ograms. residential and nonresidential, are de-
veloping rapidly, l)ut only in a limited number of States. Moreover,
in no case, are they sufficient in number at the present time to handle
all of the juveniles who are available for referral to such programs.
Many States and communities have encountered considerable public
hostility aliout community-based programs. They need knowledge
a])out strategies and techniques for overcoming resistance and securing
community support.
824
state-le\t:l jux-exile justice
The fiftli trend pertains to the design and organization of juvenile
justice programs at the State leveL As a foundation for assessment of
the effectiveness of all types of correctional programs for juvenile of-
fenders, we have obtained extensive information from and about all
States' juvenile justice systems, codes, trends, programs, and the
like, under both State or local government and private auspices. We
have also conducted reconnaissance or State-level field visits to 25-30
States to meet with senior State officials — and citizens — responsible for
juvenile justice in those jurisdictions. A reservoir of comparative
information that exists nowhere else has been developed, but our un-
derstanding of these matters is far from complete, partly because of
major gaps in official and other information within every State, and
partly because of difficulties in making comparisons across States,
which differ in so many respects, including their fiscal reporting
systems.
Our experience and preliminary findings to this date, however, allow
some forecasting of what the full findings may eventually reveal. Some
of the main lines of these findings are relevant to the concerns of this
committee :
1. To a very large extent among most States, juvenile justice is
basically localized, and is only partially guided by State policy direc-
tives or administered and financed directly through State agencies
and revenue funds. No State has yet moved to a truly compre-
hensive State-administered or supervised system for juvenile justice.
There are some notable exceptions but it appears that aboTit one-third
of the States are performing their juvenile justice responsibilities es-
sentially through decentralized and largely autonomous local agencies,
while in the remaining two-thirds many crucial components of juve-
nile justice are subject to varying degrees of State policy and
administration.
We are not yet ready to offer any concrete recommendations about
the kinds or degrees of State centralization and consolidation that
would be desirable. But our evidence indicates the extent to which
juvenile justice is essentially marginal to all but a very few State
governments * * * in the level of resources allocated to service pro-
grams, in accountability to regulatory requirements and State stat-
utes, and in priorities for State planning. Some argue that policies and
decisionmaking about youth in trouble ought to be made locally by
those closest to these youths, as in public school districts. But this
comparison is questionable for at least two reasons : Youth in trouble
have few, if any, parent organizations or other concerned groups
supporting their needs, interests and rights; and a not insignificant
proportion of youths in trouble are committed to State facilities, thus
simultaneously sending them away from their home locales and in-
curring high per diem charges against State funds.
2. The diversity of States in their j)0])ulation, economic, cultural and
geographic characteristics led us to expect significant differences in
their governmental arrangements pertaining to juvenile justice. But
not as broad and diversified as we have actually found. States that are
very similar in other respects demonstrate major variations with re-
gard to statutory provisions, administrative structures, and policy di-
825
rections. And these variations appear as much the result of tradition
or happenstance — or the occasional leadership of State oflicials^^as of
any other factors. Underneath these obvious diil'erences, however, al-
most all States reveal a high fragmentation in services to young of-
fenders, and awkward relations between governmental units among
which these responsibilities are divided. Given the rather low leyel of
concern about these matters in many States, they seem to find it ex-
tremely difficult to mesh or coordinate policymaking and program
planning or service delivery for youth in trouble among State agencies,
State and country or localgovernmental jurisdictions, as well as those
concerned with broader services for children and youth. The State
planning agencies that are mandatory under LExVA funding require-
ments arc potential vehicles for bringing greater coherence, con-
sistency and standards into planning programs for juvenile offenders,
as are movements in many States toward consolidation of State agen-
cies into larger administrative units. But the planning agencies are
frequentl}' preoccupied with law enforcement or criminal justice
priorities that minimize the young offender populations, and amalga-
mation of State agencies does not necessarily result in greater coopera-
tion or coherence.
3. Again vrith notable exceptions, the States generally evidence seri-
ous deficiencies in the extent and quality of basic information needed
for sound juvenile justice policy planning and service administration.
The lack of reliable State-level information is partly due to the mar-
ginality of these services, and partly to the tradition of localism, as we
have noted. But even where very large State revenue funds are in-
volved, few States liave yet developed comprehensive information sys-
tems that can provide them with reliable data for monitoring pro-
grams (especially at the local level), for maintaining standards and
quality control, for charting trends, and for forecasting. The relative
absence of adequate information, of course, encourages polemical argu-
mentation about "philosophies" of juvenile corrections and impedes
rational policy development. Comparative information about other
States — particularly those which States select for reference purposes —
is even more deficient. State officials may hear about promising devel-
opments or trends elsewhere, but ]:>ersonal visits seem to be the only
way that they can obtain first-hand loiowledge for use in addressing
their own situations. A number of States are very much concerned
about their information problems and are working toward now sys-
tems. Unfortunately, these are unlikely to be compatible with those in
other States, and there seems little that States can do alone to build
better ])ridges between themselves.
4. "We are searching very hard to discover fundamental juvenile
justice (or corrections) trends that might be considered as broadly
characteristic of the Xation as a whole. The differences and diversi-
ties wo have already reported, however, ap])ear at least as great as the
similarities. "We must be very cautious at this point in our research,
but believe that we have identified some lines of movement appearing
in enough States to suggest that they may eventually characterize
much of the Nation. We will cite these as best we understand them,
keepir g in mind that there are numerous exceptions among the States :
One — there appears to be more and more concern about high cost
programs for young offenders, particularly those involving substan-
826
tial capital investments. Despite the evidence that some States have
not plateaiied their rates of commitment of young offenders to State
facilities, much information indicates that costly new facilities are
being met with growing skepticism ;
Two — more and more of the committed youths are being handled
in programs other than the large, geographically isolated State "train-
ing schools," once the keystone of State juvenile corrections. Some of
these facilities are still being built or are on the drawing boards, but
more and more youths are being handled through an increasingly
broad array of diversified programs ;
Three — the range and varieties of noninstitutional programs for
young offenders is growing rapidly, but the States themselves show
time lags in their acknowledgement of the emerging variety of these
newer programs, and have difficulty keeping track of them ;
Four — although the States liave less than complete knowledge about
the full range of noninstitutional correctional programs now emerg-
ing— including halfway houses, innovative probation services, group
home, et cetera — they do know with confidence that they are more eco-
nomical or more effective than are parallel insfitutional facilities. To
the best of our present knowledge, no State has developed reliable
bases for predicting which types of programs will prove most effective
with their total offender youth populations * * * although all are un-
derstandably reluctant to assign the most serious or experienced older
youths to the low security programs.
Five — an increasing number of States are attempting to "normalize"
the social environment of their correctional facilities. One evidence of
this is the increasing number of coeducational programs in nearly all
areas of the country. Other manifestations include innovations in
education, in program foci, in the involvement of family, and in the
participation in decisionmaking by offenders and exoffenders.
FEDERAL ROLES IN JTHTIXILE JUSTICE
Thus far we have confined our efforts to State and local level issues
and characteristics. Obviously the Federal Government has a number
of crucial roles to play if effective juvenile correctional programs are
to be developed and to continue in many States. Among these roles
are several in which it appears that the Federal Government has unique
or special responsibility :
(1) Comparative evaluation researcli on both organizational proc-
esses and outcomes is urgently needed to provide bases for policy
change and develoj^ment, for program planning, and for engineering
new technologies. The National Institute of Law Enforcement and
Criminal Justice has supported significant research of this type, but
it has been limited by the resources available to it. Many of the prob-
lems requiring research and demonstration transcend State boundaries ;
thus, they will have to be done with Federal support if they are to be
done at all.
(2) Technical assistance must be proAaded to States in policy and
program development, in the selection of technologies, in evaluation,
and in the design and implementation of effective information systems.
All of these are generally not available in juvenile corrections.
(3) Dissemination of objective, reliable, comparative information
for policy and program planning is also needed. To be useful, such
827
information must be obtained and analyzed nationally and then dis-
seminated to the States and regions. The U.S. Bureau of the Census
provides one model of a critical national agency whose products are
essential to social planning- in many sectors.
(4) Training of correctional manpower is another priority need.
Our impressions to date indicate that the training of personnel for
juvenile justice has a very low priority. Moreover, where there are
training programs, they often tend to be very parochial and rein-
forcing of the organizational practices in operation in that State.
Thus, inadvertent!}', policies and practices that need to be changed
are reinforced through training.
(5) Innovation in corrections is very evident in many States and
communities, but far too often these innovations tend to be faddisli.
not well planned or implemented, and seldom are they evaluated
effectivelv. Both evaluation and innovation must be encouraored and
supported for they are long overdue in almost all areas of corrections.
But, these activities must be supported in ways that add to knowledge
develojunent for juvenile justice throughout the United States.
]Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Dr. Sarri.
I wonder if you could tell us how your project is organized, how
much monej" you received from the National Institute of Law En-
forcement and Criminal Justice, what your staff comj)lement is, and
how you go about the task of doing this survey in the several
States.
Dr. Sarri. "We have a staff complement of approximately 20 per-
sons, who are largely located at the University of Michigan. Avith
our field staff' going out from there to the various parts of the
country.
We have a grant with a plan for continuing support for 5 years,
dependent upon the usual renewal procedures. We are funded at
the rate of approximately $400,000 per year, which covers most of
the major activities of the research effort.
]\Ir. Lynch. You have a 5-year commitment for funding?
Dr. Sarri. We have a 5-year plan for the completion of the re-
search and an informal commitment that this will be supported,
but it is contingent on renewal of grant applications.
Mr. IsENSTADT. The field aspect of the project itself will be com-
pleted within a 3-year period of time, that is evaluation of correc-
tional units in the field.
Mr. Lynch. If something should continue for 5 years, is it your
intent to follow juveniles who have graduated from various programs
in order to adjudge the effectiveness of these programs ?
Dr. Sarri. Yes, we are anticipating following juveniles in some
of the programs where we have already done field investigations.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Isenstadt, I understand, is your senior field di-
rector, is that correct ?
Dr. Sarri. Yes.
]Mr. Lynch. I wonder if you could tell us, Mr. Isenstadt, what do
you do when you go into a State, who goes with you, what kind of
people are on your staff, what do you look at ?
Mr. Isenstadt. Our levels of entry into a State are variously faceted.
In our 16 sample States that were discussed, we are also looking at
and conducting probability samples regarding community-based, or the
828
LII miit, as well as the institutions, as well as subsequently juvenile
courts and probation ser^dces, detention services. At the present time
our policy has been to enter the States with the juvenile justice
agency witliin that State, the juvenile correctional agency that the
State operates, for meetings with State officials regarding the overall
program within that State.
We then, with the permission of State officials, when the program
is a State program, will conduct what we refer to as advance evalua-
tions of sample selected units, either community-based or institutions,
at which time we will develop a contract with that unit for ongoing
field evaluation. Subsequently then, we send a field team. Our field
team is made up of staff at the University of Michigan who are ex-
perienced in the area of juvenile corrections. They conduct a multi-
phased field effort directed at use of the staff, organizational pat-
terns, fiscal dates, and major program issues within each particular
unit.
My. Lyxcit. How much time do you spend in a given State ?
Mr. IsENSTADT. The initial entry into the State itself is 3 to 4 days,
although in some States, by nature of size, we spend a longer period
of time. The advance is a process of approximately a day and the
intensive field evaluation has ranged from 3 days in small units to an
entire week in the larger programs. Especially in the institutions, we
anticipate spending approximately 7 days in each institution to get a
full picture of the entire lifestyle of youths in that program, not just
during the traditional working-hour day, but during the evening and
weekend periods.
]SIr. Ltx('h. How many man-days Avould that represent ? How many
people v\'Oukl you take with you?
jSIr. IsEis'STADT. We will take a minimum on each team of three per-
sonnel ; for large institutional programs, we anticipate five or more.
The total man-days will average 10 for the small units and 35 for the
large units.
Mr. Ltxch. Are you limited to 16 States, or is this sort of the first
go-rouiKl, or what does the number 16 represent ?
]Mr. IsEXSTADT. The number 16 was selected through our probability
sample. Yes, for the full evaluation we are limited to units within the
community based and institutions within the 16 States.
Dr. Sarrt. I might point out, we also have, in addition, selected 100
counties of the United States. Again, on a probablistic basis for ob-
taining information about the operation of the juvenile courts. So we
have a whole series of samples in order to permit us to get at different
aspects of the programs. We knew we couldn't do a comprehensive re-
search evaluation study in all 50 States, so we have developed different
kinds of samples for the different types of programs we want to look
at.
Mr. Ltxch. I understand that from a statistical point of view, but
would it not be desirable for a completely comprehensive analysis, if
vou had your choice, wouldn't you be doing this in every State in the
u nion ?
Dr. Saeri. If we had our choice ?
Mr. Lynch. If you had your choice. Or was this your choice to pick
16 States?
829
Dr. Sarri. It was our choice to focus on a sample of 16 States, which
were carefully selected to represent the country. I think we felt it was
important to do an indeptli intensive study rather than a study of 50
States. "We were interested in doing more intensive work and felt it
was better concentrated, and if States were selected randomly with cer-
tain kinds of controls, we could generalize to the country as a whole.
We are doing a census of all programs in all 50 States. We analyzed
the statute in all 50 States. We are doing a sample of courts. So by
various means it will permit us to say something about the entire
country.
Mr. Lynch. But your judgment would be, the programs you are
subjecting to field evaluation, research, would represent programs
from all of the 50 States ?
Dr. Sarri. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. Could you enumerate the 16 States for us ? Do you have
that information available ?
Dr. Sarri. Georgia, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennes-
see, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, California, Colorado, Massa-
chusetts, Maryland, Montana, New York, Nebraska and Oklahoma.
IMr. Lynch. Have you to date reached any conclusions about pro-
grams in the States of Florida and/or Massachusetts ?
Dr. Sarri. No. We have not reached any conclusions about the
programs in any of the States. We did complete in one State a study
of diversionai'v pro^'rams.
Mr. Lynch. Could you tell us what you have done to date in the
States of Florida and Massachusetts ?
Dr. Sarri. In the State of Florida we have recently completed the
State-level entry and the interviewing of the various State officials
in Tallahassee. We also completed the advance preliminary research
in several local units ?
Mr. IsENSTADT. There are seven units in Florida.
Dr. Sarri. They are located in all different parts of the State.
Mr. IsENSTADT. Both State and private units.
Mr. Lynch. What do you mean by "unit," when you use it in that
sense ?
]Mr. IsENSTADT. I am referring to a specific field unit, either a com-
munity-based program entity or institutional entity.
Dr. Sarri. There are seven of those in the State of Florida, and those
all liave had the preliminary onsite research. We are now engaged in
the actual collecting of the intensive field data in Florida. In the State
of Massachusetts we have not done any fieldwork thus far.
Mr. Lynch. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McDonald. Dr. Sarri, from your list of 16 States, you did not
mention any from the deep South, other than Florida.
Mr. IsENSTADT. Georsfia and North Carolina.
]Mr. ]McDoNALD. I missed that. How about Texas? Have you had any
dealings with Texas?
Dr. Sarri. We have done reconnaissance ^\nrk in Texas. It is not a
State that is in our sample. In a numl>er of other States, approximately
25, we have actually been in for purj^oses of the field visits, but not
for a systematic data collection.
^[v. ^IcDoxAED. Mr. Isenstadt, wlien you go into a State, basically,
they know you are doing a survey of their juvenile correctional pro-
90-15S — 73 — pt. 2 13
830
gram. Do tliey cooperate with your teams or does that depend on their
relative status or stage of advancement, whether they are moving
along the line toward community-based programs or whether they are
still back in the Dark Ages, so to speak ?
Mr. IsENSTADT. I think our process is such and has been standardized
that we deal in various echelon levels with entry into a State which
consists initially of phone calls, of communication, and very clear de-
lineation about our policies, our grantor relationship, the issues regard-
ing feedback, the issues regarding confidentiality. These important
types of foundations we lay before we even physically arrive in the
^tate itself. So we have had ongoing correspondence with all States
involved in our sample extensively before we even send our first team
into the State. They are very clear as to all their moves and steps and
whoever we will be talking to in the State. And as such it has worked
out very well for us.
Mr. McDonald. But in some States I am sure you expect to be
critical of some of the programs you are going to look at. In those
States do you anticipate problems in evaluating their programs ?
Mr. IsENSTADT. I think certainly we are there to, in a sense, be
critical. They are cooperative as far as access. So far as we have had
no difficulty in regard to direct approach of State officials. It becomes
very much our position and our professional scope to analyze and
identify all issues, both overt and latent in the programs themselves,
and, as such, we attempt to study the programs thoroughly enough
to see this. But in terms of initial access and availability, we have had
no difficulty.
jMr. ]McboxALD. Dr. Sarri, I am sure you are aware of Senator
Bayh's bill, S. 821, where the age for juvenile delinquency is lowered
from 18 to 16. Can we have your comments on that aspect of lowering
the age from 18 to 16 ?
Dr" Sarri. Well, I suppose one has to say it is a mixed blessing.
There are certain obvious kinds of advantages because of the denial of
certain due process procedures that are inherent in most of the juvenile
statutes, so the 16-year-old would have the advantage of certain kinds
of due process benefits he would not have otherwise.
I think, however, there are some i:»otential disadvantages, and I
would suggest, particularly if we think about the population of
juvenile delinquents, the bulk of juvenile delinquents are poor, dis-
advantaged, jeopardized youth. If the processing into the adult system
means that the consequences are further disadvantagement at an ear-
lier age, then I think this would be unfortunate. I think this seems
to be happening in some of the States where they have lowered their
age limits. A 16-year-old sent to an adult maximum security prison —
and this is happening— cannot benefit from that experience.
In those States that have the benefit of having programs for each
age group, certainly then the handicap is far less. But many States
do not have that and it means juveniles will end up in programs with
adults. So it has to be seen as a dilemma.
Mr. McDonald. You stated before that it seems only the grapevine
is the mechanism for communicating new programs and new ideas in
juvenile correction. What do you see as an alternative or solution to
the grapevine ?
831
Dr. Sarri. I tliink, first of all, what we need to have is much more
adequate information systems. There is relatively little accountability
and relatively little formal communication. One often can find out
liow many delinquents are in a system in a given State. With regard
to institutionalization, one of the important facts is to know how^
many juveniles are incarcerated in all kinds of programs — public,
private, lockups, detention facilities, et cetera — and for how long^
and with what kinds of consequences. The comnunii cation of this kind
of information is essential and it needs to be formalized through some-
type of State and Federal mechanisms so there is some way to informx
people of what has taken place.
In the past, I think, the Children's Bureau frequently did com-
municate with the various States and communities about different
types of programs. There has been less of this in the past decade,
perhaps, and I think there needs to be more formal couimunication.
^lost of the States have little way of knowing except, as I mentioned,
the grapevine, journals, magazines, et cetera. No systematic input
exists as to what is going on from other areas.
Staff are eager to learn. I think that does characterize many people
in juvenile corrections today. They are willing to change. Most staff
are dissatisfied with the state of affairs in their programs and want
to have new ideas, new suggestions, but often don't Iniow where to
get them.
Mr. IsExsTADT. "We have found this so in our movement into States,
much interest into what we are finding out nationally, and a desire
to obtain results.
Mr. McDonald. You stated juvenile programs have normally very,
very low priority in the various States you visited. Juvenile" delin-
quency has been in the public attention for many years. How do you
atti-ibute it still rates ver}^ Ioav priority in the various States ?
Dr. Sarri. That is a difficult question to answer. I think it is proba-
bly again a dilemma of the United States that we consider children
one of our most valuable resources, and yet we seem to be unwilling to
provide children the opportunity to grow up in a way in which they
can become well-educated, mature, responsible adults. I think there
is a notion that somehow it is more important to spend money on adult
programing than on juvenile programing because the problem is more
serious, there is a greater threat to society, et cetera. Perhaps we think
that if we just sort of ignore the juvenile problem it may go away,
despite the headlines it gets.
So we have a dilemma in this society. We talk about children being-
important, a youth-oriented society, and yet in education, in medical
care: for example, one of the things that really stands out in my visit-
ing of many correctional programs is the gross lack of medical care,
health care. These are children being jeopardized by lack of medical
care. If the commissioner submits a request to the State legislature for
additional money in this area, it is frequently turned down.
Mr. Lyxcii. When did vou beffin to study? How long have vou been
at it?
Dr. Sarri. Xearly 2 years, about 18 months.
Mr. Lynch. Based on what you have done so far, what is your over-
all view of juvenile corrections in the United States? What kind of
shape are we in?
832
Dr. Sarri. I would say that there are two trends that are evident
and I certainly hope the one doesn't overcome the other. There is a
strong effort toward rehabilitation, innovation, community program-
ing, and that effort in many States, I am sure, will go forward regard-
less of what happens. In others there is at the same time a rather delib-
erate law and order effort which many States are having difficult in
dealing with — public requests to "get tough." "teach them a lesson,"
particularly because of the violence of the crime of certain juveniles.
That effort then is working toward punishment. So the two efforts
exist side by side.
I think many States will not move away from their basic thrust
toward a rehabilitation-treatment strategy. I thinl^; other States which
have not had a strong emphasis in this area may have difficulty really
getting that effort under way now, unless they get a lot of help, support,
and encouragement. In many cases there is little encouragement to be
rehabilitative. Look at State budgets in terms of how much money is
spent — I recently examined data from one State in terms of the insti-
tutional programs. Approximately 75 percent of all of the money spent
in the institutions went for salaries; and of that, 65 percent went for
maintenance and custodial staff. So you had 10 percent to spend on
the whole treatment-rehabilitation effort. That means not much can
be accomplished when that is occurring.
Mr. Lynch. I take it the two trends you mentioned, the former is the
professional trend of people who work in or who are on the fringes of
the system ; the second is more in tlie nature of a political problem,
would that be accurate ?
Dr. Sarri. No, I don't think the latter is just a political problem. I
do think most people, the lay public at large, value their children
greatly. Nearly everybody somehow wants juvenile delinquents re-
habilitated.
Mr. Lynch. "Wliat I am asking : Is there any quarrel in the profes-
sional correctional world over the rehabilitation model ?
Dr. Sarri. Eehabilitation is widely accepted as the goal.
Mr. Lynch. Who are the proponents of the model which you char-
acterized as a law and order model ?
Dr. Sarri. I think some of the law enforcement personnel, I think
it comes from certain public attitudes which have variously evolvetl
in the past few years. It comes because of a great deal of concern around
the street crime and violence in the cities. Out of desperation, the
public law enforcement personnel think that if we remove persons who
commit these acts from the community, then the community will im-
prove. I think there is a basic fallacy in this.
Mr. Lynch. It may be a basic fallacy. I would ask you, as a person
who has been engaged in surveying correctional programs across the
country, would you adhere to the view that there is perhaps an under-
determined or given percentage of young people that need to be in-
carcerated ?
Dr. Sarri. I don't think anyone would quarrel with the fact there
are young people who need to be incarcerated and need to be incar-
cerated in institutional programs. We don't have any technology wliich
would say otherwise at the present time. But that does not mean tliat
the kind of incarceration cannot have rehabilitative consenuences. It
need not be only custodial, as it is in many cases, just a holding opera-
833
tion. And for the public notion that people are educated for crime,-
I think tliis happens because people arc just sort of held for long
periods of time in wholly unsatisfactory situations.
Mr. Lynch. You indicated that the cost of incarcerating a youngster
can run as high as $36,000 a year. Do you know what State that is?
Can you tell us ?
Dr. Sarri. I prefer not to, because we have assured the States that
during the process of the research we will maintain confidentiality.
Mr. Lynch. I understand. But your testimony is that costs can run
that high ?
Dr. Sarri. Eight. And that exists in more than one State.
Mr. Lynch. $36,000 in more than one State ?
Dr. Sarri. Right.
Mr. Lynch. You also indicated a high proportion, especially of
females, in the juvenile justice system end up being detained through
what you refer to as "status offenses." I trust you mean by that, things
which if they were not children would not be crimes ?
Dr. Sarri. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. What implications does that have for their future lives?
Wliat happens to tliose children ?
Di'. Sarri. "Well, particularly with regard to females, most of these
problems center in relationships with their families, because most of
female crime is interpersonal crime and tl^e difficulty centers aroimd
family situations and family interpersonal relationships. If they are
institutionalized and away from their family, and oftentimes hundreds
of miles away from their families for months and years, it is very
unlikely the prol^lems which existed in that family are going to be
solved through that particular technique. So the problem has to be
dealt with directly.
Obviously, the other alternative is to see that this is a problem for
other types of agencies, not the criminal justice system.
]Mr. Lynch. Is this a common situation in the States you have
examined ?
Dr. Sarri. Yes. The institutionalization of female offenders for
status offenses is a relatively common practice.
Mr. Lynch. "\^niat kind of alternative would you recommend ?
Dr. Sarri. Well, I would think that certainly no one should be insti-
tutionalized, incarcerated in the criminal justice system for an act
which if committed by an adult or a male juvenile would not be a
violation. Females are incarcerated for promiscuity, but boys of the
same age who apparently also engage in the same behavior are not
incarcerated. It seems to me with regard to status offenses there is
really very little validity for incarcerating such individuals in the
criminal justice system. They may need help and very often need
service, but it should be provided through child welfare agencies, men-
tal health agencies, family service agencies, rather than defining such
individuals as delinquents because of their behavior.
]\Ir. Lynch. On IVIonday, Dr. Jerome Miller, who is now in Illinois,
but was the commissioner in Massachusetts, and the deputy director
of the department of youth services, testified about the Massachusetts
system of, in effect, closing or at least not using old existing institutions
and of going to group homes and foster homes, to handle youngsters
17 834
-who are delinquent, who have in fact committed crimes. What is your
view of that ? Is that the direction in which States ouglit to be moving ?
Dr. Sarri. The total elimination of institutions ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
Dr. Sarri. I don't see it as possible.
Mr. Lynch. Well, that is not the question. The question is. Is that the
direction in which we ought to be moving, whether it is possible or not ?
Dr. Sarri. I would say no, not total elimination, but rather substan-
tial reduction. I think we are going to have some institutional treat-
ment for juveniles.
Mr. Lynch. For what kind of juveniles ?
Dr. Sarri. For those juveniles particularly who commit serious
crimes against persons. I think we do not have any effective technology
at the present time which would indicate that none would not need to be
institutionalized.
Mr. Lynch. If we could discount the young lad who is a serious
offender, who committed rape, murder, heinous crimes, eliminate those
and the obviously mentally deranged, sliould we be putting into jail
other juveniles for less serious offenses ?
Dr. Sarri. No. I think one has to have a very serious reservation
about any convictions under which a juvenile should be placed in jail.
Mr. Lynch. As you know, Massachusetts does reserve the right and
still is, in fact, incarcerating very serious juvenile offenders. So I guess
the real question is. Is putting those people aside, putting them away
so they cannot harm society, is Massachusetts heading in the right
direction, in your judgment ?
Dr. Sarri. I think that the trend toward movement away from in-
stitutionalization is evident in a number of States, and it certainly
is highly desirable. Also, the trend is evident in Massachusetts in the
development of a wide variety of different types of programs which
permit adaption to different cultures, different community conditions,
and so on. It is evident in many States, and certainly seems desirable
in tern^s of tlie data we have in terms of effectiveness.
IMr. Lynch. Has any State gone as far as Massachusetts in that
direction ?
Dr. Sarri. We don't really know. The data we need regarding
Massachusetts pertains to tlie total number of children that are in-
carcerated. There are children being lield in county training facilities.
Mr. Lynch. I believe it is 60.
Dr. Sarri. There are ])rivate institutions, local training schools, and
detention facilities in Massachusetts. I suspect, although I don't have
the data on Massachusetts, that it would be surprising if the total
number incarcerated were as low as 60.
]Mr. Lynch. When I say 60, I mean delinquents who have in fact
been sentenced to incarceration, not delinquents who are being de-
tained for a week or overnight awaiting adjudication.
Mr. Isenstadt. But the possibility of delinquents being placed in
private residential facilities still would exist under service agreements,
which would not be indicated in that figure.
Mr. Lynch. You would advocate a complete centralized State-run
department of youth, services, or youth bureau, or whatever you want
to call it?
835
Dr. Sarri. I would not advocate a sino-le model of State organiza-
tion of youth services. I think there needs to be much more direction,
support, and assistance at the State level, and in some cases greater
centralization than presently exists. I suspect what we are going to
find, after the research is completed, is that there are a series of dif-
ferent models which, given certain kinds of cultural conditions, orga-
nizational development, and certain economics, the findings will indi-
cate that one model is preferable to another model, I think, by and
large, there is more localism at the present time than is desirable, if
you really want to have an effective system in a society where there
is a great deal of mobility. If from one county to the next, the juvenile
court in fact, operates under different statutory provisions, and the
programs are entirely different, and yet yoimgsters and families move
back and forth across the county boundaries, it becomes a very difficult
system under which to socialize young people. We have run across
counties where the laws are really quite different and the law en-
forcement procedures are quite different and juveniles have a great deal
of difficulty in adapting to these differences.
Mr. LTisrcH. "Would it not therefore be desirable to have a central
youth services board, bureau, department — whatever you want to call
it — with overriding authority, but a good deal of flexibility?
Dr. Sarri. I think that would be desirable.
Mr. Lynch. Are States doing that now ?
Dr. Sarri. Some States are centralizing. On the other hand, you
have a State like California, with a probation subsidy plan that is
well known. California for a long time had considerable centraliza-
tion, and has moved to a form of decentralization which is appropriate
for its circumstances, and the kind of program development it has.
Mr. LY?rcH. It is my understanding a central State authority still
maintains an overriding control of that. They can track people in the
program ; can they not ?
Dr. Sarri. Xot any longer in California. They cannot because of
the discretion that operates at the county level. They are only respon-
sible for those who actually become wards of the youth authority. But
the bulk of funding now in California is going to the probation sub-
sidy to the counties, and there the State does not follow and have the
same degree of control over the program.
!Mr. Lynch. I infer from what you have been saying that in going
to a given State it is very difficult for you, as field researchers, evalua-
tors, to even make a judgment as to how many children in the State are
serving in various institutions or are under various probation or parole
authorities. Is that correct ?
Dr. Sarrt. That is very difficult, and therefore we have been develop-
ing some techniques. Whereby we can get an accurate picture of at
least the major programs that have youngsters. There are things like
lockups and so on which are very, very difficult to study. These may be
the places in which the most problematic experiences are had by
juveniles.
Mr. IsENSTADT. Local jails and lockup facilities.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Isenstadt, in selecting States, did you utilize com-
prehensive law enforcement plans that are required under LEAA
leirislation ?
836
Mr. IsENSTADT. Yes, we liave; and we have received copies from
all of the 50 States.
Mr. Lynch. How many States include comprehensive juvenile jus-
tice descriptions and programs within those comprehensive State
plans ?
Mr. IsENSTADT. That would be difficult to say.
Dr. Sarri. a very small proportion.
Mr. IsENSTADT. We said approximately 10 to 11 percent of funding
under the block grants that we have seen so far in these States has
been allocated for juvenile-type services.
Mr. Lynch. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Wiggins.
Mr. Wiggins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What is the objective of the National Assessment of Juvenile Cor-
rections ?
Dr. Sarri. Our objective ultimately is to develop empirical cri-
teria, which can be used as standards for the assessment of a variety of
different types of juvenile correctional programs. The secondary ob-
jective is to cliaracterize and to assess programs which are operative
in the various States of the country at the present time.
We are attempting to be able to assess and characterize the whole
range of programs, not merely the innovative or the new programs,
so we have a picture of what the juvenile justice system is.
Mr. Wiggins. What are you going to do with the report ?
Dr. Sarri, We are already in the process of disseminating reports.
We have adopted the strateg;v' that would be desirable to get informa-
tion out about different segments of the research, as soon as it is pvi'-
pared. So two of the reports have been and are being widely dis-
persed at the present time, and others will be coming out sequentially
throughout the research period. There will be prepared at the end of
the research a comprehensive report which will be submitted to the
Federal Government, and we assume will be prmted as a compre-
hensive overall report.
ISIr. Wiggins. That report will be an assessment of the effectiveness
of existing juvenile programs in the States which you have selected.
Will they receive a copy of the report ?
Dr. Sarri. Yes; in establishing the contract with the various States
which are engaging with us in the field reseai'ch, we have assured
them of feedljack of information about the work we are doina; in the
State. For example, a State like Florida, which has seven units in the
study, will get direct feedback information about those different pro-
grams as well as generalized summary information about the country.
Mr. Wiggins, Do you propose to recommend to these States a model
for them that they might wish to adopt ?
Dr. Sarri. I think we will make recommendations. I doubt we will
recommend a single model, but again, multiple models that seem more
appropriate. I don't think there is a single effective model. There are
many models which are appropriate to achieve the ends that are
desired. The choice is dependinfr u]3on do you want to pay, you can
achieve cc level of effectiveness. Ultimately it comes to be a political
or administrative decision rather than a research decision,
Mr, Wiggins, If anything comes out of this study, it wiU l^e because
of the willingness of ithe States to adopt your recommendations ?
837
Dr. Sarri. Yes.
Mr. "VViGGiNS.Woiild you think that the Federal Government ought
to use its powers to compel the States to adopt suggested models'^
Dr. Sarri. Xo; at least personally, I think it Avould be much wiser
to support the States where they need additional resources, to move
ahead in this direction. I think it is our observation thus far that, in
the overwhelming majority of the States, there is a very sincere desire
and considerable effort to wish to develop more effective programs.
They lack resources, they lack support, they lack training and laiow-
how. This kind of help can be provided. I would be skeptical about the
value of compelling conformity in this regard.
Mr. IsExsTADT. But providing them with various models based on
the specifics of that particular State socioeconomic, geographic, urban-
rural makeup, and such.
Mr, Wiggins. That would be providing them with infonnation upon
which they could act if they wished to.
Let's assume the Federal Government wishes to provide financial
support to juvenile programs within each State. What vehicle do you
suggest to accomplish that ?
Dr. Sarri. Well, there are certain advantages in terms of the State
planning agencies for certain types of funding. I think also those
States which have State vouth service or vouth authorities, diild wel-
fare agencies of various types, in which the juvenile correction pro-
gram is located, could receive funding support for extension of their
progi-ams.
It seems to me one of the things that the Federal Government might
do would be through the use of grants to encourage the development
of certain kinds of programs. For example, a State that might not
have an extensive development for private and local community re-
sources, and this kind of effort could be developed through the provi-
sion of grants that might be administered through the State agency.
I think if it was solely just the funding of State-level agencies we
might not get the kind of innovation and change we wanted. So the
use of the grant device does provide some flexibility and encourage-
ment of innovation in the ways where just outright support to the
agency, without any stipulations, might not achieve that result.
Mr. Wiggins. Let's suppose that we agreed with your suggestion and
created a system of categorical grants to States that submitted plans
which held some promise. What agency of the Federal Government
should evaluate it ?
Is it a Justice function ?
Dr. Sarri. It depends upon which aspect of the juvenile justice
system we are talking about.
Mr. Wiggins. I can't answer that, because that would be dependent
upon
Dr. Sarri. If you are talking about the correctional program, the
provision of services, it seems to me tliat it's much more appropriately
lodired in one of the agencies of the Department of Health. Education,
and Welfare rather than a Justice function. If we are talking about
certain operations of the juvenile courts with respect to due process
and adherence to legal statutes, then, in those areas thei'e mav be a
Justice Department responsibilitv for evaluation, or an interdiscipli-
nary committee, such as exists at the Federal level where it is necessary
838
in a problem like juvenile delinquency to have interdepartmental
arrangements for handling problems that transcend departmental
lines.
Mr. Wiggins. Well, there has been a suggestion in some legislation
that there ought to be a new Federal agency that focuses primarily
upon the problems of juveniles and all of its interrelated problems, and
that agency be funded with the power to provide grants upon sub-
mission of applications by appropriate agencies. How does that idea
strike your fancy ?
Dr. Sarri. Well, I haven't thought about it for some time. There was,
a number of years ago, a proposal for that. I think it has certain kinds
of advantages. I am not sure at the Federal level if we want to extract
children from their families. That is why some of the values with the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare permit you to handle
the problem of the youths and handle also the problem of the family
and the community. So I think there are some advantages.
However, I think it is a potentially mixed blessing in that you
would need to have certain kinds of linking mechanisms to other
departments that also are concerned indirectly with the problems of
youth. So just by having the Department of Youth you can't center
all of the problems of children and youth in one particular location.
Mr. IsENSTADT. We see that on the State level. There is still a high
degree of localism in the fact the State system does not know where
many of the youth are located, and I am concerned about that, too.
Mr. Wiggins. If the Federal role is a funding role, the mechanism
for supervising that funding is a complicated problem because of the
mixed nature of the problem. It is not just a criminal problem, ob-
viously. It is a social problem; it involves family consideration; and
the Federal Government is not presently structured to look at that
total problem, at least through one set of eyes.
Let's go to another problem. A youngster, who either has a problem
or who is involved in one not of his own making, is brought to the
attention of government in a variety of ways, as you know. It may
be that a youngster is initially brought to the attention of a police-
man. It might be that he is referred from a doctor. It might be that
a social welfare agency or institution sees a problem.
Most of the people involved in this field have felt that govern-
ment should respond in a variety of ways, based upon the individual
needs of that youngster. A few would disagree with that. Government
should have the capability, at least, to reponding in accordance with
the individual problems.
That requires the intervention of considerable discretion. My ques-
tion is : ^^Hio should exercise that discretion, given the multiple ways
in which the problem is brought to the attention of government?
Let's take specific cases. If a policeman observes misconduct which
may or may not be a crime if committed by an adult, should that police-
man have the discretion to refer the youngster into the appropriate
channel which would be able to respond to that child's problem as
perceived by the policeman, or should there be some other agency
which makes that judgment ?
Dr. Sarri. I certainly think the policeman should respond, as many
people in the community should respond. Let's say, for example, the
school truant. It seems to me rather than taking the school truant
839
to the juvenile court, where he may even be held— some juvenile courts
hold in detention facilities as many as 40 percent of the children for
truancv. Rather than taking the juvenile to court, processing through
that system, there needs to be a mechanism in the school system to
respond to that particular problem, or a modification— if society is
changing with regard to compulsory school attendance — of the la^y m
that regard. But the problem is relating to the school, the social institu-
tion of the school. It seems to me handling it through the crimmai
justice system is likely to aggravate the problem rather than to solve it.
Mr. Wiggins. I can understand that, and agree with at least the-
obiectives here.
But let's suppose the child does not wish to respond to this offer of
alternative treatment. Don't you find often that there has to be some
compulsion involved to move this child into the direction in which
society thinks is in his best interest ?
Dr.' Sarri. Well, I suspect that is true in some cases, but I think in
many cases we have moved almost immediately to the compulsion,
rather than trying to facilitate the movement of the person back in
the school. I happen to have done a great deal of research on school
dropouts and tracking careers of children through secondary schools
and found that many of those children who drop out subsequently get
into delinquency — are very often the children who have been sus-
pended and who have had a great deal of difficulty in school. The
problem is not only this reluctance and hostility with regard to the
school, he also may be a "pushout."
I think you are correct in what you say in some cases, but I also
think that we often intervene too stringently with some compulsory
techniques rather than offering to assist, and to focus on reintegration
of the person back into viable roles. Granted, that if offers of help are
not received favorably and this effort continues, and it is a violation of
the statute, then there is only one alternative. But I think greater
effort is needed toward the whole diversionary strategy at the present
time. A whole series of other alternatives are available, so that the
problem doe-s not have to enter the criminal justice system.
Mr. Wiggins. These other alternatives would have to be agreed to by
the child, because if we are going to compel that child to surrender
a portion of his liberty, his freedom to go some other direction, then
we are going to have to accord that child some due process.
Dr. Sarri. Yes.
]Mr. Wiggins. And I speculate it is going to take the court to accord
them.
Now, we may call that court part of the criminal justice system, if
you wish, or we can call it something else. But the fact is, it is a
judicial proceeding.
Dr. Sarri. Yes, but I do think we have examples in other countries.
In England, in Scandinavian countries, they have developed conniiu-
nity committees where thei'e have been attempts to get community
people to focus together on the problem of, if you will, status type
offenses in the communit^^ and to insure due process through a quasi-
legal pi-ocedure, if you will, and focus on reintegration of the juvenile
back into the normal life of the community.
Mr. Wiggins. They did not have judgment to adopt a constitution
like ours, and accordingly we are not in a position to assure due proc-
840
ess through a community organization in tliis country. If a youngster
asserts a denial of due process through such an ad hoc committee, he is
going to have a judicial review of his claim.
Dr. Sarri. Eight, and then it is going to have to go to tlie juvenile
court. All I am suggesting is there are probably a series of earlier
alternatives which could be explored and developed far more fully,
rather than immediately saying the first alternative is to say we will
have a formal hearing, a formal processing.
Mr. Wiggins. I understand that, and I am sympathetic with the
goals. But as in all things in life, there are many contradictions here.
We would like to provide the maximum flexibility in dealing with the
youngster, but society's judgment must be lii-ouglit to bear against that
youngster for his own best interest, as society sees it. It may take the
intervention of some formal body. Avhich will be. in fact, a court. It
doesn't have to be known as the juvenile court, it doesn't have to have
criminal jurisdiction necessarily, so that it possesses a stigma of an
instrument of the criminal justice system.
But my guess is that the youngsters on the street still call it juve-
nile court and they will possess that social stigma, whether we wish'
to so label that court or not.
I don't have great solutions to these difficult problems, but it just
seems to me that judgment has to be exercised, discretion has to be
exercised, for the benefit of the child who is in trouble, or who has
been catapulted into trouble by perhaps his ]:>arents. And in the nature
of things, I suspect that that judgment is best exercised bv a court,
call it what you will, a hearing officer, but part of the justice system
rather than a bunch of well-intentioned individuals— without goA^crn-
ment direction and supervision — seeking to impose their will upon
children.
Dr. Sarri, I don't have any quarrel with you. What we are suggest-
ing is what needs providing are more service alternatives to help the
people. By and large the system of intervention we have at the present
time tends to result in overfocus on detention, punishment, control,
rather tlian provision of mechanisms whereby the person can be
reintegrated.
The only other concern I might mention is with regard to discre-
tion. I think discretion in many areas needs to be optimized with the
due process potentials. However, when we know, for example, that dis-
cretion in certain areas inevitably leads to continuing abuse — for ex-
ample, the fact that more than iOO,000 children are jailed each year
in this country — it seems to me there is a need in the statute to have
far less discretion about the use of jails, because they become an easy
alternative when you can't think of anythino- else.
Mr. Wiggins. I would suggest. Doctor, the answer is not to limit
the option of jail because there will always be, as you state it, a young-
ster who ought to be institutionalized in a confined environment: but
rather to srive the court exercising that discretion greater alternatives
and to make them viable options.
Dr. Sarri. Yes.
Mr. Wiggins. But I still tend to think the person who oucrht to make
that judgment ought to wear a black robe nnd be a very wise man,
rather than a very well-intentioned community worker.
841
Mr. IsENSTADT. "\Ve are even seeing in the case of some court prac-
tices related to informal probation where individuals are in fact in a
quasi-court role, where they have not been formally adjudicated, they
in a sense are maintained on a quasi-probation status with the idea
being if they violate they will then go before the court on a petition.
This is a problem in that it is not fully encompassed under the court's
authority, but the youth is often made to feel it is the court's authority.
Mr. Wiggins. Somebody is going to attack that one of these days
and disrupt the whole system.
JNIr. IsENSTADT, It lias the plea-bargaining concept of the adult sys-
tem wrapped into it.
Mr. Wiggins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. It is obvious that in this area, as in so many
others, we have to balance interests, one against the other, to try to
determine what course we will pursue when we do evaluate different
interests or even conflicting interests. In latter years the courts have
quite properly taken recognition of the fact that young people are
citizens, that the}^ are entitled to the protection of their constitutional
rights, and that the fact they don't know enough to ask for the pro-
tection of those rights doesn't necessarily mean they don't have them
and they should not be given an awareness of the fact they do have
them. Adults are given the information to the eft'ect they have such
rights they may claim.
However, I share the view that in general these programs must be
under the jurisdiction of the courts, because when you talce the custody
of an American individual and transfer that individual from his law-
ful parent or parents, or lawful guardian, into the authority of some
other person who has the power to affect the physical disposition and
the feai'S of that individual, there has to be, obviously, either knowl-
edgeable consent, or there has to be the imposition of sufficient public-
authority.
However, it should be an administrative duty for the courts to try
to work informally as much as possible, too.
It might well be all of these referrals to a State youth service
agency, for example, should come through the court, whether there be
a record made or not. The court should actually see that individual
and consent or acquiesce to the referral of that individual to the super-
A'isory agency. The court, of course, if told to do so, could relegate the
individual to a court of general jurisdiction, where the individual
would be tried for the commission of a serious crime as an adult; or
the f'ourt could simply say, "I think this is a case where we should try
to rehabilitate the individual and see if we can do something in that
direction."
But the important thing is that we should give to these young peo-
ple who have fallen into crime some sort of care, some sort of atten-
tion, and some sort of help that will aid them into taking a course in
life that will lead them away from the commission of crime, instead
of makino; them hardened criminals.
I find in these programs, such as are being administered in Massa-
chusetts and Florida, and I understand in California, the provision
of assistance to young people that they didn't otherwise have. For ex-
ample, you take a boy out of a ghetto home, that kind of an environ-
uieiit. who tunis to crime because of parental neglect, because of bad
842
conditions that prevail there, bad conditions he has among his asso-
ciates, and then a wise judge, as my colleague said, permits him to
be referred to an able, adequately funded, and knowledgeable serv-
ice program for youths. That boy in a little while might be enjoying
recreational opportunities, a new kind of environment, new associa-
tions, a new inspiration that he never knew before. He has access to
a world of which he has not been a part.
We heard yesterday from Florida's youth services director, Mr.
Iveller. He told about some of these plans. They have "Operation
Wilderness" where a lot of these boys go into a wild area, and camp,
boat, and they talk and do one thing and another. They have an
interesting and exciting experience, the kind of things boys like to
do. It is an adventure for them. It is stimulating them to a new kind
of life.
We saw five young individuals, two boys and three girls, here at
that table this week, who are in a new Massachusetts program. Those
youths were looking at life entirely different. One girl now wants to
be a counselor in one of the youth services organizations. A boy, who
had been on drugs, had a smile on his face and had quit drugs, and
was now going to work and looking forward to going into the Marine
Corps. Every one of them said they had gotten a new outlook on
life, a new feeling about life, a new sense of its importance to what
it could mean to them to live different; a better type of life as we
call it.
I know in the Miami area, until relatively recently, we didn't have
these progressive programs. Boys and girls were locked up in a dirty
jail, crowded in with one or another, or into a youth corps or youth
camp, and it was degrading to them rather than uplifting and
stimulating.
What I hope you are going to do, Dr. Sarri and Mr. Isenstadt, and
all of you who worked together, is to advise the country as to what you
find from your inquiries is the best and most effective program. I
hope that you recommend that the Federal Government should have a
larger share in these programs.
- The Massachusetts youth program was made possible by a $2 mil-
lion grant from LEAA. That is one of the best things I have heard of
LEA A doing. I wish they had done more of that, rather than putting
fi lot of money in brick and mortar or certam kinds of capital equip-
ment as they have done in the past.
But I personally think that we can find — either an agency consisting
-^of personnel from IIEW and from Justice — a Federal agency to eval-
i:iate the State plans. I personally think that the Federal Government
ought to make funds available to the States that submit a program
which shows that they are going to improve their situation materially.
I don't favor large institutions. I think all large institutions ought to
be discontinued. I like the home pfograms the}^ told us about here,
w^here they put them in private homes, small institutions, and facilities
where they pay somebody to look after them and supervise them, rather
than building a big building.
■■ You said some States are spending as much as $36,000 per child. Look
at what you could do with the $o6,000. As one of the witnesses pointed
out. vou could pay people so much a week in foster homes, you could
provide clothes and other things for them.
843
It seems to me that }■ on can perform a very valuable serAdce, and I
am pleased that you had Fedei-al aid in your program. But don't be
too hesitant to advise the public what you think is best.
I wonder if you would care to make a general observation, as to what
are your conclusions so far, from examining the systems in 16 States.
If this were a congressional committee that had authority to give ap-
pro\^al to a Federal program, what would you tell us, if you were writ-
ing the law you think, in the light of your investigation, would be best?
Dr. Sarri. Our observations would be in agreement with your ob-
servations about the value of diverse small-community programs lo-
cated close to the home and the community of the youngster who is a
target of the intervention, so that it can be adapted to the very different
cultural needs. If there is a possibility of rebuilding family relation-
ships, school relationships, employment, et cetera, that these can be
built when they are contiguous to each other. Certainly, it seems to
me, that pattern is to be supported. It certainly looks, from the infor-
mation we have available, it is viable.
It is also desirable this be encouraged under various types of pri-
vate as well as public auspices. While we want to be sure the public
participates in decisionmaking when we are making status changes so
that due process rights of individuals are protected, this does not mean
the service cannot be provided through the private, voluntary, and
full range of different types of organizational structures and models.
I think that is to be encouraged.
Chairman Pepper. Do you also agree it is desirable to have overall
authority and supervision by a State agency ?
Dr. Sarri. Yes, so there is accountability and there is direction, sup-
port, encouragement. I think that is essential.
Mr. IsExsTADT. But that a private agency not be in any way penal-
ized by the nature of its auspices in terms of receipt of funds for in-
novative and new programs ?
Chairman Pepper. Certainly not. I think it was the INIassachusetts
plan where they will pay a private agency and are glad to get them.
They say private people will respond if you pay them a reasonable
price.
Dr. Sarri. Some of the most innovative programs have taken
youngsters who have been in correctional facilities for long periods of
time, so-called hardened juvenile delinquents, and have, in very crea-
tive ways, worked very effectively with these youngsters in the prob-
lems of reintegration. Some of those problems are some of the most
difficult. TJiese again have been small-community programs. They
have been able to handle the whole operation in ways that were seldom
done in the past.
Chairman Pepper. The correctional sj^stem we are talking about,
whether court or administrative institutions, nevertheless we are tak-
ing what society has pushed into them, as it were. They come from the
schools, where they have been guilty of derelict conduct; they come
from the community, where they were dropouts, where they have been
guilty of criminal conduct. In other words, we don't get any chance to
keep them from coming there. The correctional system has to take
what they can get, like the penal institutions.
844
Has your study made any inquiry into wliat you could recommend
to keep young people from getting in a career of crime that is not
now being done ?
Dr. Sarri. We talked a little bit earlier about diversionary pro-
grams and I think that this is a way of really stopping the ine^dtable
delinquent career at a very early point. Because what very frequently
happens, if there is an apprehension for some kind of mild misbe-
havior, school truancy, incorrigibility, and so on, the individual is
socialized into a delinquent career because of associations he makes.
There can be diversion through the provision of services to such 3^outh
rather than just judicial processing.
Chairman Pepper. IIow about the schools ? What can the schools do
to prevent crimes among young people ?
Dr. Sarri. Well, one of the things that can obviously happen, modi-
fication of school disciplinary procedures that are operative in some
communities whereby, if a youngster is caught smoking, he is suspended
from school for a week, and such action starts a kind of problem for
him. If there can be Avays in which indefinite suspension of 9-, 10-,
11-year-olds from schools can be prohibited, then I think you want to
climb that way.
Chairman Pepper. You are saying it would be desirable to have
effective programs in the schools to deal with those who begin to indi-
cate tendencies toward delinquency ?
Dr. Sarri. Inevitably, a lot of the problems have to be solved in the
family and the school sector if we are going to prevent crime. It is
not by apprehending criminals or delinquents that we will really re-
duce the crime, but rather by getting at the problems that exist in the
neighborhood and trying to see these kinds of problems are solved.
Chairman Pepper. Take, for example, the boy or girl who is about
to become a dropout. Once that boy or girl becomes a school dropout,
he is a pretty likely candidate for the juvenile court and correctional
system, isn't he ?
Dr. Sarri. Yes. The research there is really quite clear. It really in-
dicates that is what really happens to a substantial number.
]\Ir. Isenstadt. He is continually confined.
Chairman Pepper. There is one of the last chances to save a boy or
girl from the criminal system — if you can do something at that time
to find out why that boy or girl drops out of school, what is responsible
for his not keeping up with the class, why they are not enjoying the
school. Is it the curriculum, is it some sort of defeat that they have?
Dr. Sarri. There is one other area which we haven't really looked
at in this society, and that is employment opportunity, work oppor-
tunity for adolescents. There is a good deal of research that indicates
there is a very strong relationship between unemployment and crime,
particularly the adolescent.
Chairman Pepper. They would work part time and particularly
summer involvement for a lot of the young people. You think that
would probably reduce their getting into crime ?
Dr. Sarri. It appears so, particularly for those crimes that might
be called utilitarian crimes, sucli as theft. I am not saying violent crime
against a person is likely to be prohibted by employment opj)or-
timities, but much of the crime is theft and robbery. This could be
reduced by more employment opportunities.
845
Chairman Pepper. I want to ask you one last question. How do you
evaluate the importance of dealing effectively, if possible, with the
problem of juvenile crime or juvenile delinquency in relation to the
overall crime problem ?
Dr. Sarri. The problem of juvenile crime? I think it is at least as
important as the adult crime problem. In many ways more important,
because these are young people who are going to live in the society
for 40, 50, or 60 years, and wc would like to think they can contribute
meaningfully to the society.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you. You have given us very valuable
testimony.
jMr. Eangel.
Mr. Eakgel. No questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Dr. Sarri, we want to thank you and Mr. Isen-
stadt very warmly for your coming here today and giving us the bene-
ht of these very valuable studies j-ou made. Thank you very much.
[The following was received for the record from Dr. Sarri :]
[Excerpt from NAJC '"Sampling Plans and Reults," March 1973]
Selection of States
The discussion of this and all following selection stages is developed in accord-
ance with the topics introduced above, namely, (1) the definition of the popula-
tion to be sampled, (2) the substantive requirements of the selection procedure,
and (3) the computation of the sampling probabilities or the actual sampling
strategy.
DEFINITION OF THE POPULATION
All 50 states constitute the population for the selection of states, thereby
excluding the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories from the sampling.
These are sufficiently different from the rest of the nation as to justify their
exclusion at this point in time ; if the resources of the project are sufficient,
they will be considered at a later phase.
SUBSTANTIVE SELECTION BEQUIREMENTS
The following requirements were stipulated by the RDS for the selection of
states in accordance with the substantive orientation of the project as a
whole :
(1) Select each state proportional to its population 5-17 years of age.
(2) Select at least three states from each census region of the U.S. (because
of overspecification in the RDS [p, 69] this criterion had to be relaxed from
four to three states) .
(3) Organize the states according to their change in admission rates of 5-17
year olds to public institutions for delinquents and select a specified number of
states from those with increasing, neutral, and decreasing rates of change (see
below).
(4) Classify the states according to their juvenile justice systems and select a
specified number from each type.
(5) Sixteen out of the 50 states are to be selected. Requirements (3) and (4)
above call for some explanation.
Control for Change in Admission Rates
The reason for employing admission rate changes to public institutions for
delinquents for sampling purposes has been elaborated in the RDS and merits
repetition at this juncture. Focusing on admission rates has several important
advantages :
It can be drawn from the most reliable data already available ; it provides
tlie best single indicator of state-wide practices; and it encourages atten-
tion to questions of both diversion from the justice system, and alternatives
to incarceration — both highly salient issues in policy and program plan-
ning. Reliance on admission rates avoids the problems associated with
using the less reliable and more volatile police arrest or court processing
95-1.58 — 73 — pt. 2 14
846
statistics. State admission rates tend to absorb both state-level and local-
level (county or municipal) processes because in all but a few situations
state funds are, directly or indirectly, the predominant resource supporting
institutionalization costs — including those of most private facilities han-
dling delinquents. Although the delinquent youths committed to institutions
typically constitute only a minority of all those involved in juvenile
corrections operations, each state's volume of institutional admissions
serves both as a constraint on (or stimulus to) prior stages in juvenile
processing and as a precondition to most aftercare services. (RDS, p. 66)
The rates of change were computed for the years 1966-1971 and are based
on public documents. The admissions during fiscal year 1965-1966 were ob-
tained from the U.S. Children's Bureau publication, Statistics on Public Insti-
tutions for Delinquent Children: J96G ("Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1967 ; admissions during fiscal year 1970-1971 were obtained
from prepiiblication results of the LEAA-sponsored. U.S. Census Bureau study,
'•Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities Census." The same questions as
were used in this mailed questionnaire completed by every institution were
used in the 1966 Children's Bureau study. As with 1966, separate data were ob-
tained for each institution. The rates were computed per 10,000 youths 5-17
years of age. The significance of this statistic is spelled out in the RDS as
follows :
In states with increased institutional commitment rates it would be de-
sirable to find out whether there have been corollary increases in the use of
alternative correctional programs, how institutions have been expanded or
adapted to accommodate larger numbers, and how the greater costs have been
supported. In the states with decreased institutional admission rates we will
be even more interested in how offenders are being handled through non-
institutional programs, whether and how juveniles are being diverted away
from the corrections system, whether expenditures have also decreased, and
how costs compare with states that have increased admissions. In the states
showing no rate-change, it would be desirable to examine how the pattei'ns
have been stabilized, the consequences for other units within the juvenile
justice systems, and how their costs compare with the other categories.
Aside from what can be learned about these questions through direct study
of sample service units, we will be constrained to rely on state reports and
available data since the project has insufiicient resources to collect full-scale
information about these state patterns, (pp. 67-68.)
These rates were found to vary from +15.98 to —12.14 per 10,000 youths 5-17
years of age over the years 1966 to 1971. Using rates instead of absolute num-
bers is better in studying the occurrence of an event across different populations
because rates are standardized for different sized populations. However, rates
of change are a somewhat more complex statistic and hence more open to misin-
terpretation. These rate changes must be read properly ; they do not indicate
the absolute frequency of institutionalizing juveniles biit only the direction and
relative velocity of change during the past five years. Indeed smaller numbers
may conceal a more conservative attitude than do larger ones — it all depends
upon where a state was in 1967. In order to determine the most appropriate
cutting points to form strata of states with decreasing, neutral, and increasing
admission rate changes, three different sets of states were formed by choosing
±2.0, ±1.5, and ±1.0 as partition criteria, respectively. Three samples were
then selected in order to study the effect of choosing different cutting points.
As soon as these three samples were selected a battery of distributions of
relevant variables (sex, race, degree of urbanization, etc.) were run in order
to compare the similarity of the three samples with the nation as a whole. Only
these distributions and not the names of the selected states in the three samples
were submitted to the senior research staff in order to determine the most
appropriate cutting points. On this basis it was decided that ±1.5 would pro-
duce the most desiral)le set of sampling states. Hence states with an admission
rate change of +1.5 or larger constitute the stratum with increasing rate changes,
those between +1.5 and —1.5 are called neutral, and those with —1.5 or less
make up the stratum of states with decreasing rate changes. Table 1 displays
the changes in admission rates stratified into increasing, neutral, and decreasing
strata. Six, two and eight states were to be selected from the increasing, neutral,
and decreasing stratum, respectively.
847
Table 1. — Rank order of States hp changes in rate of admissions to State
juvenile correction institutions, 1966-71
Increasing : R(^te change
Alaska , 15. 96
Delaware 9. 81
Rhode Island 5. 49
Nevada 4. 87
Arkansas 4. 49
Mississippi 2. 81
Wisconsin 2. 76
Tennessee 2. 74
Alabama 2. 49
Georgia 2. 19
Ohio 2. 12
New Hampshire 2. 12
Maine 2. 03
North Dakota 1. 67
Pennsylvania 1. 61
Neutral :
Wyoming 1. 26
North Carolina 1. 25
South Dakota 1. 20
Idaho . 77
Michigan . 26
Florida . 22
Connecticut . 17
Kansas — . 29
Vermont — . 65
Missouri — . 67
Indiana — . 77
West Virginia —1. 26
Kentucky —1. 34
Texas —1. 34
Virginia —1. 36
Decreasing :
California -2. 22
Washington —2. 30
Nebraska —2. 31
New Mexico —2. 82
Iowa - -3. 28
Oklahoma —3. 33
New York -3. 36
Arizona —3. 56
Minnesota —3. 79
Massachusetts —4. 01
Hawaii —4. 05
Montana -4. 28
Utah -4. 48
South Carolina —4. 99
Colorado — ">• 40
Illinois —6. 29
Maryland ~^'- ^"
New Jersey — 7- ^^
Louisiana "~'^- 80
Oregon —12. 14
Control for Justice Systems Types
The need for controlling the sample selection by means of justice system struc-
tures becomes apparent as soon as it is realized that these structures and their
component units are not similarly distributed or ordered among the states. It is
therefore important to examine whether administrative patterns resulting from
different structures influence the operations of direct-service units. Extensive
literature review suggests that controlling for the degree of consolidation of
juvenile justice systems with other service agencies (e.g.. with agencies for adult
offenders or with agencies serving the mentally ill), and for the degree of cen-
tralization of probation, would help us to study the effect of this critically impor-
tant systemic variable.
848
Centralization of probation and consolidation of the juvenile justice system
were defined as follows : Probation services are considered to be centralized if
there is a single state agency which is given complete or partial responsibility
for administering these services. In most states this is not a clear either-or situa-
tion, rather it is by "central tendency" that we code each state in such a dichoto-
mous fashion. On the other hand, a state's institutional and aftercare services are
considered to be functionally consolidated if these services for juveniles are
administered by an agency that also administers other juvenile services (e.g.,
Children In Need of Supervision [CHINS] or mentally retarded, etc.) or services
for adults or some combination thereof. Consolidation and centralization are by
no means the only two criteria available for assessing the administrative patterns
of juvenile justice systems, but they are believed to be of importance in studying
organizational effectiveness and efficiency. They are not only in the theoretical
mainstream of organizational analysis but also lend themselves reasonably well
to operationalization and measurement prior to field entry. Table 2 presents the
typology of states resulting from crosstabulating consolidation of the juvenile
justice system and centralization of probation. It was stipulated that the sample
had to be drawn in such a way as to produce at least one state of each type from
the above typology. This was accomplished, but recoding after the sample was
drawn moved Pennsylvania from cell VIII to cell VII, leaving cell VIII empty.
Given these sampling requirements a sampling strategy had to be chosen that
would meet all these requirements and still result in known probabilities. Con-
trolled selection was the obvious choice.
TABLE 2.-DISTRIBUTI0N OF STATES WITHIN JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM TYPOLOGY
No juvenile plus
adult, no juvenile
and otiier
Consolidation
Juvenile and adult,
only
Juvenile and other,
only
Both juvenile and
adult, and
juvenile and other
Centralized probation.
No centralized probation.
I— Alabama,
Connecticut,
Mississippi,
Nsw Yorl<,
North Carolina.
V— Massachusetts,
Missouri, Ohio,
South Carolina,
Texas.
II— Indiana,
Louisiana,
Minnesota,
New Hampshire,
North Dakota,
Rhode Island,
Tennessee,
Vermont,
West Virginia,
Wyoming.
VI— Arizona,
Colorado,
lllmois, Montana,
Nebraska,
New Mexico,
South Dakota.
Ill— Arkansas,
Florida, Gecrgia,
Idaho, Kentucky,
Maryland,
Oklahoma, Utah,
Virginia.
IV— Alaska,
Delaware, Maine,
Wisconsin.
2&
VII— California, VIII— Hawaii,
Iowa, Kansas, New Jersey,
Michigan, Nevada, Washington.
Oregon,
Pennsylvania.
22
10.
17_
16-
5&
SAMPLING STRATEGY
The constraints on the sample outcome were formidable because the three
control variables (regional distribution, admission rate change, and juvenile
justice system types) generate a 96-cell typology (4 x 3 x 8=96 cells). There
are only 50 states to fill this three dimensional typology and only IQ are to be
selected. Moreover, each state is to be assigned a probability proportional to its
youth population. Finally these proportional probabilities are to be computed for
each stratum of admission rate changes in such a way as to assure that 6, 2. and S
states will be selected from the increasing, neutral, and decreasing stratum of
admission rate changes, respectively. States with increasing or decreasing
admission rates over the five year period are more densely represented in the
sample than states withoiit any significant change in admission rates because
we expect to learn more from the former in terms of program planning and policy
making. Similarly, states with decreasing admis.sion rate changes api>eer more
informative for NAJC purposes than states with increasing admission rate
changes. For this reason the former were favored in the sample composition.
In order to meet all these requirements it was practical to select the states in
two steps. The first step took care of the proper distributions across regions and
849
strata of admission rate changes and produced a set of 40 qualifying states.
(Owing to successive subtraction of probability values, 10 states dropped out in
the course of this step.) These 40 states were then used as input into the second
step which resulted in the selection of the final 10 states properly distributed
within the juvenile justice system typology.
This procedure is rather tedious and time-consuming but nevertheless straight-
forward. An example may be helpful: Each state starts out with a probability
proportional to its youth population 5-17 years of age, controlled for its position
(in the admission rate change variable.^ North Carolina, for instance, is a "neutral
state" (i.e., <|l.r)| rate change per 10,000 for IOOCj-IOTI) and qualified for the
second step. It had a probability of .314 of falling into the final selection. A series
of samples — each consisting of 10 states and meeting all constraints — were
drawn in such a way that each state appeared in the series as many times as was
necessary to account for its entire probability value. Thus North Carolina
showed up in .314 samples of the series and failed to do so in .080 samples of
the series. But since a state as an indivisible entity at this stage either shows
up in a a specific sample or fails to do so, it is necessary to allocate to each sample
in the series a probability which would determine its chances of Ijeing selected as
the final sample. Tlius if tlie first sample of 16 states in the series is given a
probability value of, say, .094, all states that belong to this specific sample had
their original probability reduced by .004, whereas nothing was discounted from
the prol abilities of those states that did not appear in that specific sample. If
North Carolina fell into the sample, its new probability would then be
.314— .004=1.220. This process was continued until the probability values of all
40 states reached .000. Thirty-five samples were necessary to use up all original
}n-obabilities. And all of these 35 samples met all the requirements specified above.
The probabilities of these 35 samples were then used to form a cumulative fre-
quency distribution ranging from .000 to 1.000. Finally a random number between
1 and 1.000 was chosen to determine which of the 35 samples would be chosen
as the final selection."
Appropriate officials in all selected states have been contacted and informed
about their inclusion in the study in order to gain their full cooperation and par-
ticipation in the data collection. Also given in Table 3 are the original and the
normalized probabilities of each state based on their youth population 5-17 years
of age controlled by their position on the admission rate change variable. The
probabilities in Table 3 will constitute an ingredient in computing the selection
probabilities for the counties and service units to be selected. These probabilities
are subsequently used to compute the sampling error, a topic to be discussed later
in this paper. Now we turn to the selection of counties — the second sampling
stage according to the Research DesUm titatcment.
Chairmfin Pepper. Wg will take a 5-miniite recess for the reporter.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
Mr, Lynch, will yon ]>roceed ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, ithe next witness is Dr. Robert Harder, who is the
State director of social welfare for the State of Kansas. Dr. Harder
holds a doctor of theoloo-y deg'ree from Boston [Jniversity. He was a
former member of the Governor's staff in the State of Kansas and
served in the State leg-islature from 1961 to 1067.
Dr. Harder, if you have a statement, would you give it at this time ?
1 Tlip probabilities were separately computed for each stratum of admission rate changes
by dividing the youth population of that state by tlie youth population of all the states
falling into that stratum and multiplying this vnlu'^ by tho number of selections to be
made from that stratum. The 1970 population in each state between ages 5—17 was
obtained from the U.S. Census publication General Population Characteristics: Final
Report, PC(1)~P..
= For areater detail see Leslie Kish, Surrey SampUiiff (New York: John Wiley & Song,
Inc., 1965), pp. 488-495.
850
STATEMENT OF DR. EGBERT HARDER, DIRECTOR, STATE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, TOPEKA, KANS.
Dr. Harder. Thank you very much for the oppoitunity of being
here this afternoon. I have prepared a statement and I will not read
it. I am submitting it as a part of our total report, from Kansas.
Chairman Pepper. Without objection, Dr. Harder 's statement will
be incorporated in the record.
[Dr. Harder's prepared statement will appear at the end of his
testimony.]
Dr. Harder. What I would like to do is summarize basically wliat
is in that report. Kansas is a small State. We have an overall popula-
tion of about 2.3 million, so some of these things I am talking about
this afternoon related to Kansas would not necessarily be appro-
priate to many of the other States throughout the country.
Over tlie last 5 or 6 yeare, there has been a great deal of concern
in Kansas about how you work with the older delinquent.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me. You have a good State, altliough
it might be a small State. You certainly have a fine Governor. He is
a good friend of mine.
Dr. Harder. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, another gentleman you may Imow is ISIr. John
ISIontgomery.
Chairman Pepper. Yes. sir: a great pleasure. One of the dearest
friends I have. You took him away from Florida.
Dr. Harder. He has made a valuable contribution to our State.
In Kansas over the last 5 or 6 years there has been a great deal of
discussion about how you work with 1.5-, 16-, and 17-year-olds. In
many ways the question is not resolved. It is a question not dissimilar
from many other States.
In the recent session of the legislature, after a year's study, a legis-
lative interim committee reported out that the State of Kansas, while
it had previously embarked on the idea of building 10 regional de-
tention facilities — each facility accommodating approximately 50
boys — was to start immediate construction on 3 of those 10 facilities at
an overall cost in excess of $3 billion, the interim committee made a
recommendation that construction be held in abeyance. Instructions
were given to the State board of social welfare to develop a plan
that would emphasize the use of the community-based homes and.
additionally, there would be some type of researcli evaluation program
conducted at the same time in the interest of the legislature and the
Governor having some material out of which they could make a policy
decision.
Chairman Pepper. I certainly want to commend your State upon
that wise decision.
Dr. Harder. Thanl?: you, sir. I will convey that back to the proper
people.
Additionally, when all of this was moving through the legislative
mill, at the same time the Governor submitted a reorganization order,
the first under a new constitutional amendment, t-o reorganize the
State board of social welfare into a secretary position, and the secre-
tary will have overall responsibility for the programs of vocational re-
851
habilitp.tion, the social welfare, and hospitals and institutions, which
additionally covers the juvenile facilities for delinquent boys and girls.
So that became a second important piece of our overall design, be-
cause it opened up the door to general planning.
The third legislative thing that happened was that the legislature
and the Governor agreed to State administration and State financing of
the welfare program. So this gave us a first opportunity to divide the
State of Kansas into regions and operate our welfare program, our
social service program, on a basis other than 105 counties.
That is the background against which we are presently operating.
I will be talking with jou about really a philosophy we want to
promulgate within our State. "We hope we can get it transmitted out
to all of the regions so we have people tliinking along the same lines.
"Wlien we turn our attention to the juvenile, we have certain goals in
mind. I should add that in Kansas at least some of us think tliat, while
we talk about this kind of a goal or program in relation to the juvenile,
we think it is also appropriate to the mentally retarded, and a person
with a mental illness.
What we want to do is to insure that : No person is lost in the shuffle ;
each person achieving to his highest potential ; a continuum of care —
to which I will return — progressive steps; and hopefully the return
of the individual to independence.
In the past there has been too much warehousing of people. Wlien
govermnental agencies get involved in some of the social problems we
face, one solution that often comes up is let's build a building and put
the people in a building. The minute you build the building and put
the people in, either juveniles, mentally retarded, mentally ill, it also
means that society in many ways is excusing itself from that ]Daii;icu-
lar problem. The youth population coming up in Kansas and across
the Nation is too great, the problems are too severe ; we cannot pos-
sibly build institutions fast enough to cope with the problem. "VVe are
of the opinion an alternative strateg^^ has to be developed.
When we talk about a continuum of care, we mean progressive steps
of care leading to independence. We think a lot of this happens now,
but it happens on a potluck or a chance basis. With the legislative
background we have, we think we now have the door opened to us to
really develop a total kind of concept to provide care, not only to the
child or youth in trouble, we have a concept here we think will provide
care also to the Inentany retarded and to the mentally ill.
The earlier witness mentioned at times the mentally retarded get
mixed in with the juvenile delinquent. We think under this kind of
system there will be an opportunity for the right kind of diagnosis, so
if a child is mentally retarded we won't run the risk of that child ending
up in a delinquency -type facility.
Wliat we have starting at point A is a "call for help." The call for
help may come in a variety of ways. Maybe it is a kid in school that
has lost interest in school. We view that as a call for help. A school
official would pick up that call. He would get in touch with other
people within the community to work with the child at an early age.
From the standpoint of intervention, w-e would first place emphasis
upon support to the family.
We don't think the kid should be jerked out of the home as a
first piece of governmental intervention. We think there should be
852
an effort made to provide support to the family in tlie interest of try-
ing to keep the child in the home. If you look at it just from an
economic standpoint, the cheapest place to rehabilitate people is still
within their own home. That is part of the philosophy that is involved
here.
If that doesn't work, the next point would be foster care, outpatient
care, depending on wliat kind of problem we had. We think there are
many instances wlien the child simply can't make it in the home.
Maybe it is a situation where there are eight kids in the home, perhaps
the mother and the father can cope with four of those kids, but they
need some relief with the other four. We would see boarding care for
the four kids temporarily.
Mavbe there are other instances when the Idds have to be taken out
completely. That would be the next step in our continuum. If that
doesn't work, we move to step D, and we talk in terms of small group
homes. This is the kind of philosophy that is not new in Kansas. We
have used the community-based home for the last 20 to 25 years. We
have felt all along that there should be a delicate blend of many kinds
of resources, and that there should not be an overemphasis of one
against the other. Granted, at one time too much attention was directed
toward detention facilities, but at least they are not being built at the
present time.
Then step E, if necessarv, institutionalization. We think there are
boys and girls who have certain kinds of behavioral problems that
simply can't be handled with any small group setting of this sort. They
would be too disruptive. There is the chance of them being harmed or
harming someone else. In those situations we would see them going
into what we call in our State the Girls' Industrial School and the
Boys' Industrial School ; the girls' school, with fewer than a hundred
capacity, the boys' school running about 105.
In Kansas we have not had to face the problem of shutting down
large institutions, we simply never had them in Kansas. Our problem
now is to make sure our services blend together in a continuum, so we
get people fitted into the right place at the right time.
Then we would say at point E. after the behavior has stabilized, re-
turn the same route; institutionalization, and perhaps into some kind
of sheltered living, outpatient care support and then independence.
If we are roallv going to cope with the youthful population, we really
have to think in terms of many of these kids getting to some point of
indei^endence. We cannot develop a public policy of an increasing
number of kids now in some way dependent upon government as their
means of existence. It is of critical importance that we keep that idea
in mind in the interest of frettiuo: the kids out of institutions, out of
the community -based homes, and away from even having to have some
support from a mental health center or a social worker.
How do we see all of this happening'? Another wav of diagraming
our continuum of care would be as follows: While it looks like a kind
of a jumble, we think it is all significant. We start with the home. Per-
haps there is some breakdown in the home; there is an entree here
to communitv service programs. There is an entree to the school, be-
cause certainly, in all efforts, we would emphasize the importance of
staving in school. If the problems get severe, juvenile court and the
welfare departments stand ready to pro\'ide certain kinds of services.
853
Perhaps at this point, it is determined they need some additional
help ; foster parents, group homes, or in some instances, institutional
care.
Let me emphasize, in this kind of a concept if it is going to succeed
it is going to succeed because we made it work at the comnmnity level.
We are interested in the deemphasizing of a State agency. We think
a State agency has to have overall responsibility, they have to provide
supervision, tliey have to provide guidelines for the kinds of programs
we want to carry out, but we don't tliink the State department of social
welfare in its services to children and youth should be running com-
munity-based programs.
Chairman l^ErrEK. How about the division of funds that are made
possible m the programs. How much of that is State and how much
is local ?
Dr. Harder. We think it is impoi-tant to blend all of the kinds of
financial resources available to us. LEAA helps in funding some of
our community-based homes. They provide some seed money, some
bloc grants, to help purchase a home and to do some early staffing so
they can get up and get going.
Then through services to youth in tlie State welfare department,
we start purchasing service on a youth-by-youth basis, so the home
can start counting on continued support. We are paying from $310
to $450 a month, depending on the kind of program and the kind of
facility.
Additionally, in our services to children and youth, there is a cer-
tain part of the money that comes fix)m aid to dependent cliildren for
foster care. So the Federal Government is involved in financing that
part of it. Also, through title IV-B of the Social Security Act, di-
rect child welfare services, another piece of money is made available,
and we use it in purchasing some of the boarding home and group
care which we are talking about in this kind of plan.
I brought this map along to indicate to you, while presently we
have 105 counties, with the passage of the State administration of the
welfare program, we will be dividing the State into six regions, as you
see on this particular map. Within each region we will liave at least
one person on the regional staff who vrill bo a specialist in services to
children and youth. His responsibility will be to work with the schools,
juvenile courts, and with other agencies that are involved with kids in
the interest of developing some kind of a regional concept for pro\dd-
ing services within these geographic areas.
In the larger population areas, which would be Wichita. Topeka,
Kansas City, or Johnson County, we obviously will have more than
one staff person. The function of that regional person will be to co-
ordin.ate the resources. Additional!}', we see with this kind of a con-
cept and with great variances in population, through a regional con-
cept we can blend our resources together.
Under our concept, we would see several counties going together
to establish a communitj'-based home or service. Then the kids from
those particular counties would liave that as a resource; the juvenile
judges would have it as a resource; and the social workers would have
it as a resource. We think there is merit in this kind of a concept.
With that kind of opening statement, I will stop. If j'ou have ques-
tions, I will be glad to ansAver them.
854
Mr. Lyj^ch. Dr. Harder, what in your judgment is the appropriate
role of a State government in the area of juvenile delinquency and, in-
deed, in the larger area of youth services in general ?
Dr. Harder. I think the State government's responsibility is to do
overall planning, to do monitoring, to run program surveillance, to
stand accountable for actions being taken that are department actions.
It has the responsibility for helping communities finance the kind of
projects talked about earlier.
I don't think it ought to run community -based homes. I think it has
the responsibility to have the backup facilities, the State institutions,
the bovs' industrial schools, the girls' industrial schools. I don't think
that is an individual communitj^ responsibility, because it provides a
service to all kids regardless of where they are in the State. Anything
below that, the State has a supervising and monitoring responsibility.
Mr. Lynch. The first item that you listed was the responsibility for
planning. Do you in the State of Kansas actively engage in long-range
planning, vis-a-vis the juvenile justice system? If so, what long-range
plans do you have ?
Dr. Harder. It would be misleading for me to say we do long-range
planning at the present time. We think the legislation as now passed
and with the vehicles available to us through this kind of legislation,
have the mechanism for doing some long-range planning. We have a
good and close working relationship with the Governor's Committee
on Criminal Administration.
Mr. Lynch. That is the State law enforcement planning agency ?
Dr. Harder. That is right.
]\Ir. Lynch. Is your department represented on the governing board
of that agency ?
Dr. Harder. We are represented on the committee that deals with
juvenile programs. We are not on the governing body.
Mr. Lynch. But you do have an input on juvenile matters into the
State plan itself?
Dr. Harder. That is correct.
Mr. Lynch. Could you tell us what in your judgment is the relative
cost of providing intensive social sennces of various kinds to kids in
community-based facilities? Is that terribly expensive?
Dr. Harder. In the homes that we are talking about sometimes we
will spend $4,000 to $5,000 a year in maintaining a child in that kind
of a facility. In contrast, if the boy or girl finally ends up at the boys'
industrial school or girls' industrial school, our expected expenditures
there would be between $9,000 or $10,000 a year.
Mr. Lynch. So it is probably half of the cost of institutionalization ?
Dr. Harder. That is correct. Of course, another phase that we will
be emphasizing under our new State administration, will be placing
more emphasis upon working with the kids in their home communities,
even apart from their getting involved in the community-based home.
Mr. Lynch. You indicated the cost is approximately half. How
about the level of effectiveness? Have you been able to make a judg-
ment as to how well the homes do as compared to institutionalization ?
Dr. Harder. No ; we have not done any kind of systematic study in
that area. We have asked the legislature for $15,000 to do evaluation
on the group home concept. If that is approved, we will have $15,000
to do a systematic job of evaluating a sample of kids in different kinds
855
of facilities and then reporting back to tlie Governor and to the legis-
lature our findings.
As I understand it, Achievement Place, who you will hear from this
afternoon, has done fairly systematic studies on work in one given
facility. We don't have anything at the present time on a statewide
basis.
Mr. Lynch. But it is your intention to get that data eventually?
Dr. Harder. Yes ; we don't think we can go back to the legislature
apart from giving them hard information as to cost and effectiveness.
Mr. Lynch. You also indicated, in describing what the appropriate
role of State government was in this area, the task of coordinating, if
you will, monitoring programs. In your judgment can a number of
l^ublic and private agencies perform services for juveniles on a cooper-
ative and effective basis?
Dr. Harder. Yes. "We are not completely happy with the mecha-
nism we have in Kansas at the present time, but in view of the fact
we have some 40 homes in operation and these are run by either com-
munity groups or by private agencies, we think it is testimony to the
fact that it can be done. We don't think it has been planned out well
enough. We don't think the linkages have been made as they should
have been made ; but we think it is possible.
]\Ir. Lynch. I find your conce]3t of the continuum of care, which
is the term you used to describe it, an interesting one. Is that some-
thing that could be easily adapted to other States?
Dr. Harder. I think it could be adapted to other States if the;^ set
their minds to wanting to do it. It can be adapted to different kinds
of problems we have to work with in this whole area of social pro-
grams. One of the great faults we have had in the past, those of us
who liave worked in the area of social services, is that we have not
put together a good system; and because we haven't, we have been
accused of being tenderhearted and softminded. In the plan under
discussion, the basic data would be on a computer tape. By this means
we can start to keep track of the people who are calling for social
services in the State of Kansas.
Our overall goal would be to hook in all of the kinds of services ;
mental health, mental retardation, the juveniles involved in the ju-
venile justice system, and the predelinquent. We hope to have the
system develop in such a way that when a person — child, youth,
adult — comes to make an inquiry at a welfare office or school, a query
could be made into a central data bank and a printout made available
on tliat particular individual.
Mr. Lynch. How many detention facilities does the State presently
operate for juveniles ?
Dr. Harder. We presently operate the Boys' Industrial School and
Girls' Industrial School. The Boys' Industrial School has a capacity
of approximately 195. The Girls' Industrial School has a capacity
of approximately 98. We have what we call an "annex" that is ac-
tually under the management of the Boys' Industrial School, and it
accommodates approximately 80 boys. These are boys that it is deemed
there has been enough work with them, that they can participate in
the local schools. Additionally, we have a Kansas Children's Receiv-
ing Plome which accommodates 30. We have 50 beds set aside at two
of our hospitals to work with the mentally ill individual. Then at
856
our vocational rehabilitation center, we have 19 beds. These are de-
voted to boys who have had some kind of preliminary contact with
the juvenile courts. So it is a total of about 475 beds that are actually
available.
Mr. Lynch. Would those 400 juveniles be better served if tliey
were in small group homes located throughout the State?
Dr. Harder. No ; we think that this is the complement to the com-
munity-based home. Until we can get the concept I have tried to outline
here really functioning in a total way, I would view the necessity of the
State to be involved in these kinds of programs on a continuing basis.
As Ave become more effective in working with kids in their homas,
conceivably we might be able to cut down on some of the beds we ai-e
listing here. But in the next 2 to o years, I don't think it is realistic
to eliminate beds. They are necessary as a backup.
Mr. Lynch. Why do you not want the State to operate the com-
munity-based homes ?
Dr. Harder. If the State moves in to operate the community-based
homes, we are letting the community off the hook. They will feel the
State has assumed that resjionsibility. The interest and the concern
for the kids will lessen. In the overall we will all be put at a disad-
vantage. The community-based home is going to function only if it is
really and genuinely a community facilit3^ It has to have enough ac-
ceptance in the community so the kids can go to school in the com-
munity. It has to have enough acceptance so the kids can go to the
swimming pool, the, public library, and the list goes on and on.
I think the minute the State takes on that responsibility you lessen
the chance of that kind of acceptance in the community.
Our second imjoortant ]^oint, is that from the standpoint of the reso-
lution of the problems related to kids, it seems to me the community-
based home is one dramatic physical wav of saying that we have got
some i^roblems in this community related to Icids and that is why that
home is there. It lielps to focus attention on the fact we have some kids
in trouble who need the adult helj) of people within that community.
]Mr. Lynch. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chaiiman Pepper. Mr. McDonald, do you have any questions ?
Mr. McDonald. Yes, thank vou, ]\Ir. Chairman.
Dr. Harder, could you explain to us what kind of programs go orr
at the industrial schools ?
Dr. Harder. The industrial schools are pretty much self-contained.
Thev have their own separate schools offering a full curriculum, so
the boy or the girl, if he stays that long, would have enough credit to
graduate from high school. Or, if he is there for a short time, he can
take courses in the school and credit can be transferred to another high
school in the State of Kansas.
Additionally, there is some effort at both the boys' industrial school
and girls' industrial school for vocational-type programs. But this
has limited impact.
Mr. IMcDoNALD. The=e facilities; are secure though? The juveniles
can't enter and leave as they please ?
Dr. Harder. No. There are no walls, no fences. There never has
hee^T .
Chairman Pepper. You mean in your State institutions you don't
have them boxed in ?
857
Dr. Hauder. No. There is a fence like tliere is a fence around a fami-
}ard, but there is not a high fence, a retaining fence.
Mr. McDonald. What do you do then for people ycfti want to keep
locked up ? Where do they go i
Dr. Harder. At the Boys' Industrial School there is a security
cottage.
Mr. McDonald. Approximately hoAV many youths are there?
Dr. Harder. I am sorry, I don't recall right oil' hand.
Mr. McDonald. Percentagewise.
Dr. Harder. I have been in it. My guess is it would be fewer than 25
t)ut of the 195.
iNIr. McDonald. One more question. At the industrial school, is it
an indeterminate sentence there where they just stay there until you
feel they are ready to go back down into one of the other programs?
Dr. Harder. That is correct.
Mr. ^McDonald. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Dr. Harder, do you have the juvenile court to
refer young people into the sj^stem ?
Dr. Harder. Yes. There is a close working relationship, generally
between the juvenile court and the whole welfare department. The
juvenile code in Kansas is written so the juvenile court has the judi-
cial responsibility. We have the case history and the social workup
responsibility. At times there are tensions, understandably so. But I
think increasingly we are getting those tensions worked out. I think
one of the serious problems in the whole area of juvenile justice is that
we have juvenile judges who are not trained as attorneys. Because of
that, I think there are times the judges make improper decisions. Ad-
ditionally, in the past we have not had any kind of a total concept.
If the courts, and other social ser\'ice agencies and community serv-
ices are going to be used effectively, we have to develop more of a
team approach than we have in the past.
Chairman Pepper. Undoubtedly, your legislature will give con-
sideration as to whether or not juvenile judges should be attorneys.
Dr. Harder. Yes. I think in the future, as we move to more of a
regional concept in the State, this opens the door to have trained at-
torneys serving as juvenile judges on a regional basis.
Chairman Pepper. If a youth lias committed some criine or serious
offense and comes within the jurisdiction of the juvenile judge, does
the ju.venile judge impose a sentence upon that individual, or refer that
individual to the social welfare department and youth service to have
custod}' and to release or recommend a release of that individual when
they thinlv it is proper to do so ?
Dr. Harder. It vcorks botli Avays. They have the option to use either
device. We increasingly ai-e saying to them that we can do a better job
of working with the kids if we are brought in early and not on the day
the sentence is being made. We are making headway in that whole
area. In the instances Avhon Ave are dealing AA'itli nonattorneys, they are
less apt to see the importance of social or youth services.
Cliairman Pepper. I think you are quite right in emphasizing the im-
portance of the community in the rendition of the service to the in-
dividunl, Hoav avouUI you diA-ide the expense of the rendition of the
.service between the State an<l the count v ?
858
Dr. Harder. Actually, I would divide it three ways. The Federal
Government, through the Social Security Act and LEAA, has a cer-
tain responsibility : the State government has a certain responsibility ;
and there should be a certain amount of local tax effort and united
fund money available.
The bulk of the financial responsibility^ in most instances probably
rests with some kind of governmental unit, but I think the commuinity
fund, or united fund, has a responsibility for helping the program to
get started and to pick up those kids that cannot be picked up by the
public welfare department or the social service department.
Chairman Pepper. You do think the Federal part in this program
you speak of should relate only to the inauguration of the program, to
enable the State and /or local authorities to inaugurate the progi-am.
to get it into operation, or should the Federal function extend beyond
that and also provide a deposit of funds to the maintenance and opera-
tion part of the program ?
Dr. Harder. I think the Federal responsibility should be a limited
responsibility. The same thing I said about States not getting involved
in commimity-based homes, and services is even more true with Federal
involvement, although there needs to be a Federal commitment of dol-
lars. There is a Federal responsibility to make information available
of the kinds of programs going on over the country.
Additionally, there is a certain responsibility to set forth to the
State of various models which have worked. The States can pick and
choose, without the Federal Government rigidly saying this is the only
way we are going to fund a program in your State.
I think another responsibility that could be a Federal task would be
some type of overall program evaluation. There is no need to invent
the wheel over and over in the separate States. Program evaluation
could be a Federal responsibility, federally funded and federally di-
rected.
There are some other vehicles which are readily available. Under
the Social Security Act, IV-B, the money authorization has never
been met by appropriations.
That is the money available under "Child welfare" for direct child
Avelfare services. The appropriation is $44 million. The authorization
is $196 million. Without any additional legislation being put on the
books, the Congress can make additional money available, and in most
of the States as I understand it, and that is the money that goes to lielp
maintain communitv-based homes and to buy foster care. This is a
significant step which could be taken tomorrow that would aid im-
mensely in making sure these programs get on down the road and are
effective.
The second thing, which should happen — and I don't direct this at
the Congress alone — but at the Washington level ; if we are really con-
cerned about the kids in the United States, one of the important tliino-g
that ought to happen in Washington right now is that all of the ])ad
mouthing of the ]Drogram Aid to Dependent Children ousfht to stop.
Because a lot of the kids we are seeing in these community-based homes
are kids that are connected to the welfare department t-hrough ADC.
or what we call ADC foster care. If Washington is reallv concerned
about the kid population in the United States, if it really wants to talk
about rehabilitation, if it really wants to keep these kidsin school, then
859
"Washington is long overdue in reorienting itself. Washington must
quit bad mouthing the ADC program. It is not onl}^ a lot of mothers
we are talking about, it is a lot of kids we are talking about.
We are doing our country a great disservice as we continue to beat
that drum, simply because it seems to be smart politically. It is going
to do harm in the long run to the kids that I assume all of us are
interested in.
Chairman Pepper. One last question : What do you see as the role
that the schools might pursue which would tend to diminish the num-
bers of young people who come into the delinquent or correctional
program ?
Dr. Harder. There are two imj^ortant functions a school needs
to assume right away. One is the schools need to look at their curri-
culum in such a Avay that they start making determinations as to
what the kids need and not simply what is comfortable for the teach-
ers to teach.
The second thing is that schools need to be viewed, and the teachers
need to view themselves, as one of the first ports of call. When I had
the diagram up, I set aside a "call for help" — I think there are kids
that call for help in the first grade or at the kindergarten level. They
need help ; the teachers know it, and we know it. We don't do an ade-
quate job of making sure those kids sending out messages of help
actually get wired into some kind or helping system. We must make
every effort to save those kids, instead of pushing them out of school
and out on the street.
Chairman Pepper. I participated in a hearing before the Educa-
tional Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee,
presided over by the able chairman of that committee, I^ir. Perkins
of Kentucky, in Miami recently. It was reported by school authorities
there from several States that at the present time, under the present
funding of programs that we have in operation, only about one out
of three of the disadvantaged children who are supposed to be the
beneficiaries of title I of the educational program are getting any
help. There is not enough money to help but one of three of the
cliildren that would be in this disadvantaged class.
When I asked these educators what happens to those disadvantaged
children who don't get this effort, they said they are primarily school
dropouts.
Xow, then, I didn't need to ask them what happened to the school
dropouts. We heard here, just this morning, we lieard time after time,
those school dropouts are the best candidates for juvenile crime and
juvenile court. Yet, there is a proposal by tlie administration to reduce
those funds further, make less money available instead of more.
So if we really, as you say, want to do something about these prob-
lems, if this country and the Government of the United States and tlie
government of the several States really want to do something about
crime, they have got to put the money that needs to be put into the
school system into home aid programs, into child care programs, and
into programs tliat have to do with those who are delinquent later on
and need to be given an opportunity to be rehabilitated. And, of course,
into programs that have to do with i-ehabilitation of adults, as well.
Dr. Harder. That is right.
860
Chairman Pepper. But what we like to do, as was done here a while
ago, is to call for the death penalty. That looks like that is a hard line,
that is a hard-nosed public official that really wants to do something
about crime — recall the death penalty, Yfe had the death penalty in
this country for a long time and it didn't stop crime.
These same people that want to restore the death penalty are taking
credit for the reduction of crime, and there hasn't been anybody exe-
cuted in this country for several years.
Then they come out and want to send some drug pusher to the
penitentiary for life, or a very long time. If he would be one of the
top fellows, I would be willing to do that. Put him under the jail
if you can get him under there, for that matter. But I haven't heard
any of these people whose hearts are bleeding for the victims of crime
in this country that have talked about more money for the school
system, more money for our social service programs, more money for
community aid programs, more money for correctional programs, and
the like.
It is whether you really want to do something about the problem
or whether you just want to make a political upheaval,
Dr, Hakder, While I make a plea for more money, I make it on
the basis that the States can demonstrate to the people we have to Avork
with that we can do a job. We can work creatively with the kids. We
are willing to be accountable ior our n'^tions. In the area of account-
ability in social services, we have been negligent. I am not in opposition
to accountability, that whole concept of accountability.
Chairman Pepper. Neither am I. Congress has never intended there
be an abuse in the use of the money we make available. It is primarily,
as I understand it, the job of the States to tighten up the administration
of the programs. Let's see every dollar get at least a dollar's worth of
good service,
Dr, Harder, there is a rollcall and we have to go. I want to thank you
very much for coming. Please give mj^ warmest regards to Governor
Docking and my good friend John Montgomery.
[The following material was submitted by Dr. Harder :]
Peepaeed Statement of Robert C. Harder, Director, State Department of
Social Welfare, Topeka, Kans.
At times, we find it extremely difficult to work with the young person who does
not fit into preconceived molds as to how a child ought to act. He gets labeled a
troublemaker, a delinquent, a slow learner, retarded, or many other labels which
fit our need for pigeonholing but do very little in the interest of helping the youth.
Once we get the young person labeled, then he is properly packaged and we are
then in a position to cast him out of the immediate society in which he finds him-
self. Casting out may seem a harsh way of putting it, but when we think in terms
of a stay in some type of facility or institution and then refer to his retui-ning to
the community, it seems to me that it presupposes there has been a casting out
and entrance into an institution. There are occasions when a young person needs
to be removed from his home and his community and it should be done. However,
this decision must be made in the interest of his own well-being as well as the com-
munity's. I am fearful at times that the easting out strategy becomes our only
strategy in working with the youth who may be creating a problem within our
society.
Don't get me wrong. I am not going to build a case for saying that youth does
no wrong. Neither will I align myself on the side of saying anything goes. In
fact, I tend to be fairly firm in some of my own concepts as to discipline, order and
responsil)ility on the part of the youth to his family, to his community and to the
total society.
861
We need to view the behavior of children and yoiith as well as our expectations
of them on a continuum. The continuum would have, on the one side, a complete
and total permissive atmosphere, anytliing goes ; the other side of the continuum
and at the extreme point would be a philosophy of treat them rough — give them
little opportunity for si)eaking out and for participation in their own destiny.
From the stjindpoint of approach and style, I think both extremes are unaccept-
able. I would break into the middle of that continuum with a concept of high ex-
pectation, demands and responsibility, involvement in decision-making and a
genuine concern and care for the humanness of adults and youth.
In Kansas there is a statutory provision providing that the State Board is to
develop a child welfare service program and shall administer or supervise child
welfare activities including the care and protection of dependent, neglected, de-
fective, illegitimate and delinquent children and children in danger of becoming
delinquent. The Board shall cooperate with the federal government, through its
appropriate agency or instrumentality, in establishing, extending and strengthen-
ing such services and undertake other services to children authorized by law.
The State Department of Social Welfare is the designee for carrying out those
problems related to the implementation of the interstate compact on juveniles.
In the amendment of the juvenile code, it provides that the juvenile judge may
call upon the county departments of social welfare to do case histories and as-
sessments in relation to those young people who have l>een brought to he court's
attention. In the 1972 session of the legislature, legislation was enacted provid-
ing that the State Department of Social Welfare would be the reporting body and
follow-up agency on matters related to child abuse.
The state department is involved in the placement of many of the youths going
into the various state institutions. Through the vocational rehabilitation pro-
gram, the department has a tie to a youth adjustment center at the Kansas
Vocational Rehabilitation Center. The department is involved in the joint licens-
ing of boarding homes and day care centers. Increasingly, we are finding that our
involvement extends beyond those families who are dependent upon public assist-
ance or those children and youth who are connected to our departments as state
wards. In many instances, agencies are serving as broad social service agencies.
They are finding themselves being called upon to work in this whole area of pro-
grams related to children and youth. Increasingly, we are concerned about doing
more than ambulance work. We would like to be in a position to give guidance
and leadership in developing prevention type plans in the interest of minimizing
the need for institutional, out-of -community, out-of-home care.
At the present time, we are involved in an experimental program in Western
Kansas covering nine counties called the Wheatlands project. Through this proj-
ect, there is an effort to provide additional help to the various educational and
social institutions and juvenile courts in the counties in the interest of developing
alternatives to the young people becoming actively involved in the judicial system.
In Wyandotte County, we are presently working to establish an umbrella-type
youth agency whose responsibility will be to coordinate the youth services avail-
able in the Wyandotte County area. In both instances, the emphasis in these proj-
ects is on coordination, problem solving, anticipation of needs and then developing
a strategy to make the best use of the avai-iaJt)le resources. We want to develop
strong, creative and concerned programs for the children and youth in these
respective communities.
I have given some philosophy and the statutory mandate under which we
operate. Philosophy and laws alone don't solve problems related to children and
youth.
Our department has to face the social forces which are calling forth new solu-
tions and new strategies.
Our society is faced with an increase in family breakdown resulting in divorces,
separations and desertions and, if there are children involved, then a high proba-
bility of children needing help. There is an increase in drug usage. There is an
increasing number of youthful offenders. There is an increase in the number of
dependency and neglect cases.
Lest we focus too much attention on the youth, we need to remember that the
adults in our society play a key role in problem developing and problem solving.
There are too many adults who would like to warehouse the kids and keep them
out of our society. We think there are serious questions to this approach.
To break forth with new ideas and develop new strategies is the real challenge
before us. Barriers must be broken down, gone around and overcome.
862
In a governmental setting, political opposition to new thrusts, altered
approaches, a heightened emphasis can be one of the strong barriers to be over-
come.
As you can gather from my earlier remarks, our approach is community
based. Such an approach means that we are not going to hide the kids. As far
as possible, we want the kids to remain with a community setting. The com-
munity is the place where the kid will have to learn how to survive. This ap-
proach may well mean community opposition.
Adult neglect is another formidable barrier. For many of us, we think that if
we can label and pigeonhole, then we have solved the problem at hand. Wouldn't
many of us as adults have to admit that we get wrapped up in our own world
of work or boating or fishing or some other leisure activity and we fail to take
into account that there are kids all around us who need the help and support
which only adults can give?
Your interest and mine is in solutions and strategies.
The State Department of Social "Welfare is a governmental body. As such, we
operate in an executive, legislative, and political framework. We have to work in
concert with key executive and legislative leaders to bring about change.
In Kansas, a legislative study committee reporting to the 1973 Legislature
indicated that the appropriating of $3.2 million to build state-operated deten-
tion facilities should be delayed.
The Committee is of the opinion that the non-institutional approach may have
merit and that it would be in the best interest of the state to delay the construc-
tion of additional institutions for juvenile offenders until it can be determined
which alternative is the most effective in meeting the needs of the state in the
delivery of youth services.
The Committee recommends that pilot community-based treatment projects
be established. These projects should be initiated in both urban and rural areas.
Pursuant to this recommendation, the State Board of Social Welfare should
develop detailed pilot project proposals and submit such proposals to the legis-
lature and to this Committee for consideration. Such proposals should include a
complete description of the plan, including staflSng patterns, necessary funding,
administrative structure and evaluation techniques. In order for a judgment to
be made about whether a community-based program does indeed represent a
viable alternative to the more traditional institutional approach, the plan should
be devised so that some comparisons between community-based programs and
institutional programs can be made. Comparative costs and effects on recidivism
are the two most critical elements to be considered.
The Office of the Governor, on April 2, 1973, made the following recommen-
dation to the Legislature :
"I recommend that this 1973 Legislature include the pilot project as projwsed
by the State Department of Social Welfare in the omnibus bill. The proposal
provides for two community-based homes, intensive work with a select number
of young persons, and a program for evaluation. The proposal requires $202,533 in
state funds. The amount of state money is based on the assumption that the
state can make use of certain federal funds under the social service provision
of the Social Security Act."
In Kansas there is significant executive and legislative support for the con-
cept of community-based homes.
In that we have 42 group homes accommodating approximately 335 youth
and 18 group homes accommodating approximately 145 youth, we think there
is community support for the concept.
The strategy we see is that of continued community concern.
This continuum would envision that each community would have within its
structure a mechanism for, first, giving support to families. The best place to
develop healthy and sound kids is in the home. This presupposes the home has
stability, has concern, and has an interest in humane treatment. These ingredi-
ents within the home do not come automatically nor do they come easily. The
various kinds of helping agencies at the local level must give support and help to
homes. Then, homes can develop in a positive and creative way which, in turn,
will support the kids within the home.
If the home breaks down, the next level of community concern would be small
group homes mthin the community which could accommodate six to eight chil-
dren or youth. In this type of group home, the youth could continue a more or less
normal existence in the community in which they were living. The group homes
863
need the support of the various institutions within the community. They will
need the understanding of people within the neighborhoods where the group
homes are located. They will need the support of the educational system so the
kids can continue their education without any type of stigma.
If the child or youth cannot make it in a group home, the next level would be
Boys Industrial School or Girls Industrial School. These are well run programs,
but I do not think the state needs to embark on a program of small Boys Indus-
trial Schools over the state. That program would be expensive. It would not
match the possibilities of care in local communities.
Through this plan of operation, I hope you can envision with me the concept
of continued community concern. All three words are important. Continued,
because we cannot let down in our interest for children and youth. Community,
because, if we are going to have an effective program, it must be based in the com-
munity.
We must get over the feeling that we can pigeonhole and label kids and cast
them out of our community. We are duty bound to find solutions and develop
strategies so the maximum number of youth are kept within our community. It
is within the community that these problems have to be solved. It is within the
community that the adults are reminded of their responsibility for the kids
within that community.
The third important word is concern. Perhaps it is self-evident as to what I
mean, but let me underline it. I am fearful that at times our concern is expressed
by labeling and in constructing buildings. This is not the concern that I am in-
terested in. I am interested in the kind of concern that says to these young people :
"We care about having you within our society. We expect you to perform as re-
si>onsible citizens. We are interested in you as human beings. We want to enter
into conversations with you, so together all of us may help in shaping the future
of our communities, our state, and our land." It is this kind of hard-going, de-
manding, self-giving concern that I am talking about. It is not a concern that is
willing to feel the job is done when a i)erson is labeled or when we have him
properly placed in some building.
With the passage of a bill permitting stMe administration of the welfare pro-
gram in Kansas plus an executive order reorganizing the State Department of
Social Welfare, Vocational Rehabilitation and the Division of Institutional Man-
agement, we think we have one additional important piece which will help us
carry out the proposed strategy.
While in the past we have had to deal with 105 counties, in the future we
will be dealing with 6 regional offices under which there will be district offices.
Through this plan of operation we will be able to give more specialized services
to youth in trouble. We will be in a better position to provide program resources
to local community. Through a regional concept we can reach out and serve
as a catalyst to draw together the various agencies working in the area of serv-
ices to children and youth.
Through the vehicle of the executive order, we now have the opportunity
to provide a umbrella of social services. Hopefully, we can begin to give a con-
tinuum of care to all of our citizens. Our goal is to prevent people from being
lost in the shuffle. Our goal is to ensure the development of an individual to
his maximum potential.
To get the job done, we will have to follow the lead of the scientists and the
technicians : that is, discarding old concepts, the patient building on previous
experience, team work, no resorting to fads, experimentation with evaluation,
and the pooling together of various resources. The second step we would have
to take is a commitment to a certain type of strategy, and I would make a plea
for continued community concern. Three, as adults, I think we have to examine
our own ideas and attitudes related to the children and youth. As adults, I think
we must be willing to respect them as children and youth. We must be willing
to make demands upon them, but also, we must be willing to work with them.
We must be in conversation with them in the interest of molding and shaping
a common destiny. Fourth, undergirding our work, there must be an enhancing
of self-respect and self-confidence on the part of children and youth as well as
the adults.
As one man has said, "There Is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more
perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the
introduction of a new order of things."
864
Message From the Governor — (Mondat Ape. 2, 1973)
To : The Kansas Senate and House of Representatives.
In my legislative message and budget report to the 1973 legislature, I stated
that I would transmit further recommendations regarding services to children
and youth in Kansas. This message contains my recommendations to be included
in the omnibus bill.
The special Public Health and Welfare Interim Committee appointed by the
Legislative Coordinating Council studying the area of juvenile services and
facilities recommended to the 1973 legislature that funding for regional juvenile
facilities be delayed. The committee, in its report, made this statement :
". . . The cost estimate of $3.26 million for the three facilities is entirely
too expensive for the type of program being proposed. Further, there has been
developing in various states across the nation a trend toward less regimented
non-institutional approaches in working with juvenile offenders. Massachusetts
is one state in which this approach has been translated from philosophy into
actual practice. In Massachusetts, for all practical purposes, state institutions
for juveniles have been closed. California, Florida and Minnesota also are states
being cited as leaders in this area.
"The emphasis in the non-institutional movement is on placing the youth in
community-based facilities, often group homes, in as nearly a normal environ-
ment as is possible. This can be accomplished, in part, by state contracts with
private persons or agencies. Proponents of this approach contend that the com-
munity-based treatment philosophy can be more successful and less expensive
than an institutional program."
The committee recommended that community-based projects be established
on a pilot basis. The committee suggested that the State Board of Social Wel-
fare develop detailed pilot project proposals. These proposals have been de-
veloped and reviewed by the Governor's OflSce and by certain members of the
legislature.
I recommend that this 1973 legislature include the pilot project as proposed
by the State Department of Social Welfare in the omnibus bill. The proposal
provides for two community-based homes, intensive work with a select number
of young persons, and a program for evaluation. The proposal requires $202,533
in state funds. The amount of state money is based on the assumption that the
state can make use of certain federal funds under the social service provision of
the Social Security Act.
During the course of the 1973 session, representatives of the United Cerebral
Palsy of Kansas organization conferred with members of the legislature and
officials of the Department of Social Welfare concerning projects specifically
designed for persons who suffer from cerebral palsy. United Cerebral Palsy of
Kansas has suggested a $60,000 program to include a select number of cerebral
palsy patients in state institutions who could benefit from a deinstitutionalized
program. The appropriation for this program should be made to the State Depart-
ment of Social Welfare so the department can make maximum use of possible
federal funds. After observing the operation of this program, the state can deter-
mine whether to move more actively in this area.
Robert B. Docking,
Governor of Kansas.
[Excerpt From Govesinor Docking's Legislative Message, January 1973]
CHILDREN and YOUTH
In the past several years there has been discussion concerning the state's re-
sponsibility for the teenager in trouble — particularly 16 and 17 year olds.
A special interim committee has studied the possibility of building three re-
gional detention faclities at an approximate cost of $1.2 million each. The annual
operating cost would be $500,000 per each center. The interim committee has now
recommended that the state should hold in abeyance the building of those facil-
ities. I concur with that recommendation.
As an alternative we should consider a statewide plan for establishing com-
munity group homes. Achievement Place in Lawrence has received national
recognition for its program of greater participation in schools and a lower return
rate to the facility.
865
The concept of Achievement Place is that of a small group — six to eight per-
sons— under the direct supervision of parents who have a responsibility for
teaching and guiding the young people into good education and work habits.
I am recommending that serious consideration be given to state encourage-
ment of community-based homes. The capital investment for each facility is
$20,000 to $30,000 in contrast to $1.2 million, the cost of a detention facility.
The yearly operating cost is approximately $4,000 per individual in comparison
to the $10,000 which would be the cost in a good institutional setting.
I am considering a proposal for later submission to the legislature.
Chairman Pepper. We will recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon.
Afternoon Session
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
Our first scheduled witness this afternoon was to be Senator Birch
Bayh. Senator Bayh has been imavoidably delayed so we will receive
this prepared statement for the record.
[Senator Bayh's prepared statement follows :]
Pkepaked Statement of Hon. Birch Bayh, a U.S. Senator
From the State of Indiana
I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of this Subcommittee, Congress-
man Pepper, for giving me the opportunity to talk with you about a matter of
mutual concern — America's juvenile delinquency problem. As Chairman of the
Senate Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, I care deeply about
finding answers to this problem because it seriously threatens the welfare of our
children, our greatest national resource.
I am troubled by the continuing rise in juvenile crime in this Nation. The hard
facts are that we are facing a problem of extreme seriousness which will not go
away by ignoring it. Juvenile delinquency takes an alarming toll every year. It
also causes incalculable damage to the quality of life in this country, resulting
in both economic and human loss as well as threatening the personal security
and well-being of many Americans. According to the latest FBI figures, young
people under 25 account for more than three-fourths of the total arrests for
serious crimes in this country. During the last ten years, arrests of juveniles for
violent crimes increased by 193 percent ; arrests, for property crimes such as bur-
glary, larceny, and car theft, jumped 99 percent. Our failure to deal effectively
with the spiralling juvenile crime rate is dramatically underscored by the failure
of our current system. The recidivism rate for institutionalized delinquents is
the highest of any age group — between 74 and 85 percent. Many if not most adult
criminals have a juvenile record.
During my two years as Chairman of the Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee,
we have conducted extensive hearings and investigations on juvenile justice and
corrections, and the role of the Federal government in the prevention and control
of juvenile delinquency. Expert witnesses, including State and local officials,
representatives of private agencies, social workers, criminologists, judges, and
criminal justice planners have testified at length on all aspects of the existing
juvenile justice system. These witnesses have generally agreed that the present
juvenile justice system is bankrupt and that the Federal effort to prevent and
treat juvenile delinquency is uncoordinated, fragmented, and ineffective.
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1973, S. 821, is the
vitally needed response to this tragic failure. I developed this measure during the
92nd Congress, when it was introduced as S. 3148. After extensive hearings, I
joined with my distinguished colleague from Kentucky, Senator Marlow Cook,
the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee, in introducing a revised and
improved version of the bill last February. We are gratified that the distinguished
Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Perkins, and the
Chairman of that Committee's Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities, Mr. Haw-
kins, have introduced a companion bill. H.R. 6265.
S. 821 and H.R. 6265 provide the structure for national leadership and the
commitment of resources necessary to create a powerful partnership of Federal,
state and local governments and private agencies to prevent and treat juvenile
delinquency and to improve the quality of juvenile justice. The Juvenile Justice
k
866
and Delinquency Prevention Act emphasizes the critical need to prevent delin-
quency : it provides for the development of services and programs that will reach
out to children in danger of becoming delinquent and assist them in resolving
their diflBculties at home, at school, and in the community. The bill also seeks
to develop alternatives to the traditional juvenile correctional system, such as
shelter care, group homes, and probation subsidy programs. It provides strong
incentives to divert children from the juvenile system through community-based
diagnostic and rehabilitative services and programs and to work with parents
and other family members to retain the juvenile in his own home. My bill rec-
ognizes that the primary responsibility and hope for meaningful delinquency
prevention and treatment lies with the local community where the child's prob-
lems first begin.
The critical need for this legislation is clear. Our hearings have revealed be-
yond any shadow of doubt that problem children rarely receive the help they
need. Instead, these children are incarcerated in antiquated, custodial institu-
tions where they are frequently beaten, neglected, and homosexually assaulted.
Witnesses before the Senate Subcommittee repeatedly emphasized that large
custodial reformatories or training schools do not rehabilitate juveniles. Instead,
these young people may be forced to learn criminal skills to survive inside the
institutions. This is doubly tragic when we consider that these children are
so often "more sinned against than sinning." Approximately half of the institu-
tionalized juveniles are locked up because they are runaways, truants, or are not
wanted at home. These children have not committed a criminal offense ; rather,
they are the victims of parental and societal neglect of the worst sort.
Our hearings revealed that there are productive ways of handling children
in trouble which offer a real chance of ending the cycle of delinquency, incarcera-
tion, and more serious criminal activity. S. 821 reflects the consensus of people
working in the juvenile delinquency field on the effectiveness of community-
based facilities and services for delinquents and neglected, abandoned children
and other potential delinquents.
Some State and local governments and private agencies have successfully
utilized the community-based treatment techniques outlined in this bill. In the
course of hearings on the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, we
learned of states which have developed group homes and residential treatment
centers as viable alternatives to incarceration. I understand that you have al-
ready heard of the successful experience of the State of Massachusetts in closing
down traditional juvenile institutions and placing the juveniles in group homes
and other shelter care facilities. Kentucky is another state which is developing
alternatives to incarceration like those provided for by S. 821. Kentucky has
recently phased out Kentucky "Village, a reform school for delinquent youth
which contained as many as 700 young people, and has created a variety of
alternatives in its place, such as small, decentralized intensive residential treat-
ment centers with a maximum individual capacity of 40 young people. Group
homes and halfway houses have also been developed to avoid institutionalization
for some juveniles and to assist youth in making the transition from institutional
living hack to their home communities. "Hard to place" delinquent youth who
had been in training schools for as long as five years have been placed in foster
and group homes. The recidivism rate during the first year of this new program
was a remarkably low ten percent. S. 821 would make it possible for Kentucky
to increase its present level of community-based services and to continue towards
its goal of further reductions of institutionalization.
Delaware has moved to reform its juvenile corrections system since the
conditions in its juvenile institutions became the subject of private and public
investigation in 1969. As Mr. Robert Cain, Director of Delaware's Division of
Juvenile Corrections, testified before our Subcommittee, "children in the custody
of the State for 'rehabilitation' were being exploited, abused, and punished
beyond belief." Since that time, progress has been made in developing medical,
educational, testing and recreational programs in detention centers; utilizing
diagnostic-medical-reception centers in institutions to develop individual treat-
ment plans for juveniles; providing improved academic and vocational edu-
cation in institutions; and creating meaningful post-institutional aftercare.
Prior to 1971, there were no alternatives to incarceration for juveniles in Dela-
ware. Since that time, a few group homes, utilizing available community re-
sources, have been developed as alternatives to institutional care and as post-
institutional homes. In spite of these encouraging gains, more than 47 percent
of the juveniles in Delaware institutions are there for acts which would not
be a crime if they were adults. According to Mr. Cain, to carry out a plan to
867
move these juveniles into shelter facilities where they belong would require
Federal resources and direction as provided in S. 821.
There are other encouraging examples of youth programs designed to give
children the support they need in my own State of Indiana. The Youth Ad-
vocacy program in South Bend, Indiana, provides a wide range of services for
young people, with the primary goal of preventing delinquency. The legal services
component, which is working to protect the rights of youth, most recently won a
landmark case involving the rights of juveniles locked up in the Indiana Boys'
School. Another part of the South Bend program is an alternative school sys-
tem which provides school programs for drop-outs. The Youth Service Bureau
in Peru, Indiana, operates a hot-line and a drop-in center for young people
who need immediate help with their problems. The Howard County Youth
Service Bureau in Kokomo, Indiana, provides crisis intervention service. Its
work is so effective that the juvenile court judge utilizes it in some cases as an
alternative to probation.
California has developed a probation subsidy program, which is one of the
alternatives to institutionalization encouraged by S. 821. In such a subsidy
program, a unit of local government is reimbursed for every juvenile retained at
the local level rather than sent to a state correctional institution. The operation
of the probation subsidy program in California from 1966 to 1972 resulted in
the reduction of commitments to the State by 10,624 juveniles at an estimated
savings of $68 million. This worthwhile program benefits the taxpayer, provides
assistance to local governments, and encourages treatment of the juvenile in his
home community where the possibility of rehabilitation is the greatest.
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, S. 821, emphasizes the
importance of private agencies in developing and providing youth services. The
YMCA has told us of their 50 programs in inner-city facilities which receive
referrals from juvenile courts. These youth-residential centers work with young
people on a one-to-one basis to solve each child's particular problem whether
it be school, job, drugs, or diflaculties in the home. The YWCA has also started
programs to work with girls who have been identified as having trouble in school
or in the community, before the diflQculty leads to serious trouble. Dr. Karl
Menninger, the noted psychiatrist and criminologist, testified before our Sub-
committee about the success of the Villages, a concept of foster group living,
which he developed, in caring for neglected and homeless children. Given adequate
support and encouragement, these private, voluntary efforts can unquestionably
be effectively adapted in other communities.
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act strongly emphasizes
the role of volunteers in delinquency prevention and treatment programs. In
hearings on S. 821, we have learned of many encouraging examples of volun-
teer programs. For example, the National Congress of Parents and Teachers
has developed a program in cooperation wath the National Council of Juvenile
Court Judges called "Volunteers in Court" to train volunteers to work vplth the
court, the family and the child in trouble. The volunteer programs run by Indiana
University at the Boys' Training School have been remarkably successful in
helping juveniles return to productive, healthy lives in the community. On the
national level. Big Brothers of America has recruited more than 75,000 volun-
teers to work on a one-to-one basis with fatherless boys who need guidance and
support. However, even this nationally known program cannot, at present, uti-
lize more volunteers unless additional resources are found for the professional
supervision essential to an effective program.
The desperate need throughout the country for demonstrably effective de-
linquency prevention and treatment programs underscore the urgency of enact-
ing S. 821 into law. S. 821 establishes the structure and provides the resources
for the national commitment needed to help our children before they become
delinquent and to rehabilitate them if they do get into serious trouble. The Fed-
eral effort to prevent and treat delinquency has failed to provide the direction
coordination, and resources required to deal with the enormity of the delinquency
problem in this country.
Testimony before our Subcommittee by oflBcials of the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
confirmed the sad truth that juvenile delinquency is at the bottom of the Ad-
ministration's list of crime control priorities. The inadequacy of the Federal per-
formance is further exacerbated by the Administration's efforts to cut back
drastically social services for young people and their families.
The hard facts are clear. The issue we are facing today is whether we are
going to make the kind of national commitment required to turn the tide of de-
868
linquency. There can be no half measures, no false economies. Unless we make
a total response to the needs of our children, we will be destroying not only their
future, but the future of the entire nation.
The Juvenilg Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act builds on existing knowl-
edge of the best ways to help children in trouble. Nothing less than this com-
prehensive bill will provide the resources and leadership commensurate to the
size of the delinquency problem. Now it is up to us in Congress to make sure
the jobs gets done.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Lynch, will you proceed.
Mr. Lynch. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to present to you and to the members
of the committee. Dr. Dean Fixsen. Dr. Fixsen works in the depart-
ment of human development in the bureau of child research at the
University of Kansas. He holds a Ph. D. degree from that university
and he is a codirector of the achievement place research project.
Accompanying Dr. Fixsen this afternoon is Dr. Montrast Wolf,
who is with the department of human development in the bureau of
child research at the University of Kansas. He, too, holds a doc-
torate from Arizona State University and with Dr. Fixsen, is a
codirector of the achievement place research project.
Doctors Wolf and Fixsen will make a presentation to the com-
mittee, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. We are happy to have you. Doctors.
Mr. Winn, wouldyou like to say anything by way of presentation ?
Mr. Winn. Mr. Cfhairman, I appreciate the opportunity. I have al-
ready visited with our guests. They happen to represent my own home
university and come from my congressional district. I think Mr.
Lynch has done a very fine job of introducing them.
I think the committee will find the achievement place research
program very interesting, and I might say that the community in
the Lawrence area, which is a college town, has been very supportive
of this program. I believe the committee will find it a very interesting
and novel approach.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Dr. Fixsen, we are very glad to have you here.
STATEMENTS OF DR. DEAN FIXSEN, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, AND
DR. MONTROSE M. WOLF, PROFESSOR, ACHIEVEMENT PLACE RE-
SEARCH PROJECT, UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS, LAWRENCE, KANS.
Statement of Dr. Fixsen
Dr. Fixsen. I would like to begin with a few slides describing the
program. Later on we will talk about some evaluation data that will
describe the effectiveness of the program in relation to other kinds of
programs designed to treat youths. We will also discuss a training
program as a means of disseminating the program across the Nation.
The Achievement Place program was begun by a group of inter-
ested citizens and organizations in the Lawrence community. The
local juvenile court judge and the JayCees were especially active in
developing the program. The JayCees wanted to develop an alter-
native between institutionalization — which is a very serious move,
since it removes the child from his community, from his parents, his
friends and teachers in the school system — and the only other alter-
869
native open to the judge at that time was a probation program that had
only minimal supervision of the kids. They thought for many kids
there should be some third alternative, some medium point between
probation and institutionalization.
About a year after the program began, we applied for and were
successful in getting a research grant from the National Institute of
Mental Health, Center for Studies in Crime and Delinquency, which is
directed by Dr. Saleem Shah. From that time on, we have been conduct-
ing reseai'ch on how to develop a model program. We have been sup-
ported now with NIMH research grants the last 5 years.
Achievement Place is a community-based, family-style, behavior
modification, group home treatment program for delinquent youths
in Lawrence, Kans. The goals of Achievement Place are to teach the
youths appropriate social skills such as manners and introductions,
academic skills such as study and homework behaviors, self-help skills
such as meal preparation and personal hygiene, and prevocational
skills that are thought to be necessary for them to be successful in the
community. The youths who come to Achievement Place have been
in trouble with the law and have been court adjudicated. They are
typically 12 to 16 years old, in junior high school, and about 3 to
4 years below grade level on academic achievement tests.
A^Hien a youth enters Achievement Place he meets the other youths
in the program and is given a tour of the house. Then he is introduced
to the point system that is used to help motivate the youths to learn
new. appropriate behavior. Each youth uses a point card to record
his behavior and the number of points he earns and loses. "V^Hien a youth
first enters the program his points are exchanged for privileges each
day. After the youth learns the connection between earning points
and earning privileges this daily point system is extended to a weekly
point system where he exchanges points for privileges only once each
week. Eventually, the point system is faded out to a merit system
where no points are given or taken away and all privileges are free.
The merit system is the last system a youth must progress through
before returning to his natural home. However, almost all youths are
on the weekly point system for most of their 9- to 12-month stay at
Achievement Place. Because there are nearly unlimited opportunities
to earn points most of the youths earn all of the privileges most of
the time. Once in a while one or two youths will fail to earn enough
points to buy all of their privileges and once in a while a youth will
earn so many points that he becomes the new "point champion."
The privileges that are available to the youths are basics, which
includes the use of the telephone, tools, and the yard; snacks after
school and before bedtime, wat^-hing TV; and hometime which per-
mits the youths to their natural homes on the weekend or to go down-
to^^^l. These privileges are naturally available in Achievement Place
and add nothing to the cost of the treatment program. Other privi-
leges that can be earned are $1 to $3 allowance each week and bonds
which can be accumulated to purchase clothing or other needed items.
A typical day at Achievement Place begins when the manager
awakens the boys at about 6 :30 in the morning. The boys then wash
their faces, brush their teeth, and clean their bathroom and bedrooms.
The manager, who is elected by his peers, supervises these morning
chores by assigning specific cleaning tasks to his peers, by monitoring
870
the completion of these tasks, and by providmg point consequences f or
their performances. While some of the boys are cleaning their rooms
and bathrooms other boys are helping Elaine prepare breakfast.
After breakfast the boys check their appearance and pick up a daily
school note before leaving Achievement Place to attend the local pub-
lic schools. Since Achievement Place is a community-based facility
the boys continue to attend the same schools they had problems with
before entering Achievement Place and the teaching parents work
closely with the teachers and school administrators to remediate each
youth's problems in school. The feedback teachers provide for each
youth is systematized by having each teacher fill out a daily report
card each day. A teacher can quickly answer a series of questions about
the youth's behavior by checking "yes" or "no'' on the card. Some
youths do not require daily feedback and they carry a weekly school
note to class each Monday. In either case the youths return their com-
pleted report cards to the teaching parents and they eani or lose points
depending upon the teachers' judgment of their inclass performance.
Wlien the boys return to Achievement Place they have their after-
school snacks before starting their homework or other point-earning
activities. In the late afternoon one or two boys usually volunteer to
help Elaine prepare dinner. During the meal or just after the meal the
teaching parents and the youths hold a family conference. During a
family conference the teachmg parents and the youths discuss the
events that occurred during the day, evaluate the manager's perform-
ance, establish or modify rules, and decide on consequences for any
rule violations that were reported to the teaching parents. These self-
government behaviors are specifically taught to the youths and they
are encouraged to participate in discussions about any aspect of the
program.
After the family conference the boys usually listen to records or
watch TV before figuring up their point cards for the day and going to
bed at about 10 :30.
The main emphasis of the program is on teaching the youths the
appropriate behaviors they need to be successful participants in the
community. We have found that a community-based group home tli^
keeps the youths in daily contact with their community offers many
opportunities to observe and modify deviant behaviors and to teach
the youths alternative ways to deal with their parents, teachers, and
friends. These behaviors are taught by the professional teaching
parents who direct and operate the treatment program. The teaching-
parents live at Achievement Place with their family of six to eight
delinquent youths and provide them with 24-hour care and guidance.
The teaching parents also work wi 'h the youth's parents and teachers
to help solve problems that occur at home and at school.
Statement of Dr. Wolf
Dr. Wolf. Although we have evaluated many of the specific proce-
dures the teaching parents have developed to teach appropriate be-
haviors we have only recently begun to evaluate the overall effectiveness
871
of the Achievement Place program. Our preliminary data include
measures of recidivism, police and court contacts, grades and attend-
ance at school. We have taken measures for 16 youths who were com-
mitted to Achievement Place, for 15 youths who were committed to the
Kansas Boys School — an institution for about 250 delinquent boys —
and for 13 youths placed on formal probation. All 44 youths had been
released from treatment for at least 1 year at the time we collected
these data and all had been originally adjudicated by the Douglas
County Juvenile Court, Lawrence, Kans. All of the youths were po-
tential candidates for Achievement Place when they were adjudicated.
The boys were not randomly assigned to each group. Rather, they
were committed to each treatment by the local juvenile court for
reasons that we cannot specify. Therefore, any differences among the
three groups can be attributed to initial differences among the boys
committed to each group or to the effects of each treatment. That is,
the differences among the groups may be due to a population effect
or to a treatment effect. However, in the past year we have begun
randomly selecting youths for admission to Achievement Place. We
plan to collect followup data on these youths to provide an experi-
mental evaluation of the long-term effects of the Achievement Place
treatment program.
Figure 1 shows the average number of police and court contacts
for each youth before, during, and after their respective treatments.
As shown in this figure, the Achievement Place youths and boys school
youths each had about four contacts with the police and court during
the year preceding their formal adjudication while the probation
youths each averaged about 2i/^ contacts. During treatment the pro-
bation youths each averaged over one police and court contact while
the Achievement Place youths and boys school youths each averaged
about one-half contact during treatment. During the first year after
treatment the probation youths and boys school youths each averaged
about 214 contacts with the police and court and this decreased to
about 11/^ contacts during the second year after treatment ended. The
Achievement Place youths averaged about one-half contact with the
police and court during their first year after treatment and this de-
creased to zero contacts during the second year.
These data indicate that the Achievement Place youths and boys
school youths were similar before and during treatment but were very
dissimilar after treatment. The boys school youths once again returned
to a fairly high number of police and court contacts while the Achieve-
ment Place youths maintained a low number of contacts with the
police and court.
Figure 2 shows the percentage of boys in each group who received
treatment after their release. These percentages are based on the num-
872
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
1.0-
ACHIEVEMENT PLACE (N = 16)
3^
0.4
0.7
O U
D. 15
li
UJ o
O
4.0H
3.0
2X)
1.0H
BOYS SCHOOL (N= 15)
3.6
0.5
2.4
4.0 -j
3.0
2.0
1.0
PROBATION (N = 13)
2.6
1.3
2.5
One Year During
Pre - Treatment
Treatment
0.0
-Ok
t.4
as
One Two
Year Years
Post -Treatment
Figure 1
873
IOOt
50-
Achievement Place (N = I6)
19%
oo
1 100-
^ 50-
eg
I 100-
Boys School (N =15)
53%
13%
Probation (N = I3)
54%
50-
31%
1-
53'yo
62%
0-12 0-24 0-36
Post Treatment Months
Figure 2
874
ber of youths in each group that committed some delinquent act after
their release that resulted in them being readjudicated by the court
and placed in the boys school, in a State mental hospital, in jail, or
sent to adult court for prosecution. As shown in this graph, 5 percent
of the Achievement Place youths, 13 percent of the boys school youths,
and 31 percent of the probation youths were readjudicated during
the first 12 months after their release. By the end of 24 months after
their release, a cumulative total of 19 percent of the Achievement Place
youths, 53 percent of the boys school youths, and 54 percent of the
probation youths had been readjudicated. Thus, it appears that the
large number of police and court contacts experienced by the boys
school and probation youths resulted in a larger recidivism percentage
for these two groups. The Achievement Place youths had a smaller
number of police and court contacts and a smaller recidivism per-
centage.
Although these police and court data reveal substantial differences
among the groups they are measures of failure and are not measures of
success. It is difficult to argue that lack of failure means success since
there are many reasons unrelated to a youth's behavior that may influ-
ence whether he is readjudicated or not. For this reason we also took
measures of school behavior. Figure 3 shows the percent of nonadjudi-
cated youths in school before, during, and after treatment for each
group. For two semesters before treatment about 75 percent of the
youths in each group attended public school at least 45 days during each
90-day semester. During treatment 100 percent of the Achievement
Place youths, 100 percent of the boys school youths, and 84 percent of
the probation youths attended school each semester. During treatment
the Achievement Place youths and the probation youths attended the
public schools in Lawrence while the boys school youths attended the
school provided in the institution. During the first semester after their
release 84 percent of the Achievement Place youths, 58 percent of the
boys school youths, and 69 percent of the probation youths attended
public school. By the third semester after treatment 90 percent of the
Achievement Place youths still attended public school while only 9
percent of the boys school youths and only 37 percent of the probation
youths were still in school.
Another measure of school behavior was the percent of classes passed
by the youths who attended school in each group. These data are shown
in figure 4. For 1 year (two semesters) prior to treatment the Achieve-
ment Place youths passed (with a "D— " or better) 55 percent of their
classes, the boys school youths passed 57 percent of their classes, and
the probation youths passed 68 percent of their classes. In addition,
about half of the classes passed by the Achievement Place and boys
school youths were passed with a grade of "C" or better and the pro-
bation youths received a "C" in about two-thirds of the classes they
passed. During treatment the Achievement Place youths passed 98
percent of their classes, the boys school youths passed 100 percent of
their classes, and the probation youths again passed 68 percent of their
875
classes. About half of the classes passed by the Achievement Place and
probation youths were passed with a "C" or better while almost all —
92 percent^-of the classes passed by the boys school youths were passed
with a "C'- or better. It should be noted again that the boys school
youths attended school in the institution while the Achievement Place
and probation youths continued to attend public school in their com-
munity.
Achievement Place (N = I6)
100-
50-
75%
100%
Wh
Wh
o
o
Boys School (N = I5)
- 100-
:2
Z 50-
75%
lOO^a
58%
9%
100-
50-
Probation (N = 13)
77%
84%
69%
One Year
Pre-Treatment
During
Treatment
One Three
Semester Semesters
Post-Treatment
Figure 3
876
lOOn
ACHIEVEMENT PLACE
50-
1
496
^«S8 1
49]
495
1
«55 i
!
ISO
454 1
441
443
1
1 1
1
o
(/)
S, BOYS SCHOOL
924
U
so-
il 100
"D-" "C-"
or Better or Better
I
1 159
lis
440
45
ui PROBATION
o 100-,
0.
so-
468
447
468
434
,445
432
264
m430
One Year During
Pre- Treatment
Treatment
First Second Third
Semesters Post-Treatment
Figure 4
After treatment the Achievement Place youths passed 88 percent,
91 percent, and 95 percent of their classes over each of the respective
semesters and about half of the classes that were passed each semester
were passed with a "C" or better. The boys school youths passed 59
percent and 40 percent of their classes each semester after treatment
and they passed only one-fouth or less of these classes with a "C"
or better. The probation youths passed 45 percent and 30 percent of
their classes each semester after treatment and they passed three-
fourths or more of these classes with a "C" or better. Only two semes-
877
ters followup are shown for the boys school and probation youths in
figure 4 because the number of youths still attending school during
the third semester was very small — see fig. 3.
These school data indicate that the Achievement Place youths were
similar to the youths in the other two groups prior to treatment but
after treatment were more successful than the boys school youths or
probation youths in t^rms of staying in school and passing classes.
These data indicate that the Achievement Place youths are passing
their classes and progressing toward the graduation requirements for
junior high and high school.
The police, court, and school data indicate that the Achievement
Place youths are progressing much better than their peers who were
sent to the boys school or placed on probation. As indicated earlier,
these data may reflect a "treatment effect" or a "population effect"
attributable to the initial differences among the youths because the
youths were not randomly assigned to the groups.' However, we plan
to collect similar data on a sample of randomly selected youths to
pro^dde an experimental evaluation of the long term effects of the
Achievement Place treatment program.
However, even if the results of this random selection procedure
shows that the Achievement Place youths do no better than youths
who were sent to an institution, we would continue to advocate re-
placing most institutions with group home treatment programs. We
would do this for two reasons. First, group home programs are more
huraane than institutional programs because the youths receive more
individual care, they remain in close contact with their community
and parents and friends, and programs can be provided to teach them
important social, family, and community-living skills. Second, group
homes are less expensive to operate. Figure 5 shows that the cost per
bed of purchasing, renovating, and furnishing Achievement Place
was about one-fourth the cost of building an institution. And, the
operating costs per youth for Achievement Place are less than one-
half the operating costs for the boys school in Kansas. Thus, to build
a boys school for 250 youths and operate it for 1 year would cost
about $8 million. To purchase, renovate, and furnish group homes
for 250 youths and operate them for 1 year would cost about $2.5
million, a savings to the taxpayer of $5.5 million. If the followup
data collected at Achievement Place and at other group homes eventu-
ally provide evidence that systematic group home treatment programs
are also more effective than institutional programs we can expect a
major shift away from institutions and toward community-based
programs.
FIG. 5.— COMPARATIVE COSTS
Achievement
place Institution
Capital Investment per youth $6,000 $20,000 to $30,000.
Yearly operating cost per youth $4, 100 $6,000 to $12,000.
Dr. FixsEN. In 1970 we began attempting to replicate the teaching-
family model that had developed at Achievement Place. We were not
sure how to go about training new teaching parents but we felt at
95-158 O - 73 - pt. 2 -- 16
878
that time that the trainees should know about the treatment program
and should use the teaching parents at Achievement Place as models
of good teaching parent behavior. With these two rather vague train-
ing goals in mind we asked the trainees to enroll in a masters degree
program at the University of Kansas where they took courses that
emphasized the principles of behavior modification, courses in applied
research measurement and design, and courses that related directly to
the token economy procedures used at Achievement Place. The trainees
also participated in a practicum where they visited Achievement Place
several hours a day for 3 weeks then had complete responsibility for
operating the treatment program for 3 or 4 days. During this practi-
cum the trainees were told to "watch how the teaching parents run
the program so you can do the same things in your own group home."
After these trainees completed their course work and practicum —
which required 9-12 months — they were hired by group home boards
of directors and they began to implement the treatment program in
their own group homes. After a few weeks or months it became readily
apparent that the training program had failed to produce completely
successful teaching parents. After examining these unsuccessful pro-
grams for a few months — examining in the sense that we spent a great
deal of time at each home trying to improve each program and trying
to figure out why things were not working — it soon became apparent
that the trainees had learned the principles of behavior modification
and they could operate a point system just as we had taught them
during the coursework. Our conclusion was that these things alone
were not sufficient to produce a successful treatment program. These
early failures to replicate the teaching family model forced us to
look more carefully at the original, successful treatment program at
Achievement Place to discover what important differences there were
between the successful and unsuccessful teaching parents. We learned
a great deal about the original program from these early failures.
The most important thing we learned was that the successful teach-
ing parents were constantly teaching the youths new skills. The suc-
cessful teaching parents quickly defined small problem behaviors, pro-
vided instructions to the youth on these problems, had the youth prac-
tice appropriate alternatives to the problem beha\'ior, gave the youth
feedback on his behavior in the practice session, ^ave the youth points
for his cooperation and for learning a new skill, and the teaching
parents did all of this in a very pleasant, nonconf routing manner. This
was quite a contrast to the challenging, confronting interaction style
or the "ignore it and it will ^o away" interaction style that we found
among the unsuccessful teaching parents. Thus, teaching skills became
a very important part of our revised training program and we are
now convinced that the teaching instructions the trainees carry out
with the youths in their program is one of the three most critical fea-
tures of the treatment program. The other two aspects of the program
that we feel are necessary for replication are the self-government sys-
tem and the motivation system — point system or token economy.
Once we had an idea some of the important differences between the
successful and unsuccessful teaching parents we began to look criti-
cally at our training program. For our first trainees we had taught
psychological principles and concepts and we left it up to them to
translate those abstract terms into procedures to follow to change the
879
behavior of delinquents. Since this was not sufficient we decided to
teach the trainees the specific skills they would need and secondarily to
proAdde them with a brief rationale for their use. We also decided to
teach the trainees in the same way successful teaching parents teach
the youths in their program. That is, we describe the appropriate be-
havior and give a rationale for it, we have the trainees view video-
taped models of the appropriate and inappropriate teaching parent
behaviors, we have the trainees practice the appropriate behaviors
with each other during a role-playing session and practice with the
youths in a teaching- family home during an inhome practice session,
we provide specific feedback on their behavior during the practice
sessions, and we provide positive social consequences to the trainees
when they master the skill.
Thus, our informal analysis of our original failures to replicate the
treatment program produced new conceptions of the original treat-
ment program and provided us with a number of specific skills that we
felt were required of successful teaching parents.
To achieve the goals of the training program we developed a train-
ing sequence that consists of five parts : (1) an initial 5-day workshop
where the trainees learn and practice the basic teaching-parent skills
and treatment procedures needed to begin a program; (2) a 3-month
practicum period where the trainees implement the teaching- family
program in a community-based group home and receive frequent con-
sultation from the training staff; (3) an evaluation of the overall
treatment program by the training staff by means of questionnaires
given to local agencies that have contact with the program, to the
youths in the program, and to the youths' parents, as well as an onsite
evaluation by a member of the training staff; (4) a second 5-day
workshop where the trainees receive feedback from their evaluation
and additional training on several aspects of the treatment program ;
and (5) a followup evaluation period where the trainees' program is
reevaluated after 6 months and 12 months and where continuing con-
sultation is provided. Thus, the trainees are considered to be m the
training program until after the 12-month evaluation is completed
and passed.
The training program was designed in this way to facilitate the
trainees learning how to carry out the treatment procedures. The first
workshop provides an introduction to the teaching family model and
practice on rudimentary teaching-parent skills. However, the most im-
portant time for learning is after the trainees begin implementing the
program in their own group homes during the 3-month practicum.
During this time they are faced with many problems each day that
require immediate solutions. Thus, they are motivated to learn now to
carry out many of the procedures they may not have seen as important
during the first workshop and they learn many of the more subtle
teaching techniques. During the practicum the trainees call the teach-
ing-parent trainers several times a day at first to get advice on solving
problems. In addition to the daily phone calls there is one weekly
phone call of longer duration throughout the 3-month practicum where
the progress and problems of the week are reviewed and a plan for
the following week developed. Usually, toward the end of the 3-month
practicum the number of daily phone calls decreases as fewer prob-
lems occur that require consultation. Thus, by the end of the 3-month
880
practicum the trainees have had a great deal of experience in using
at least the basic components of the teaching family model. Because of
this experience, during the second workshop they are better prepared
to understand some of the more subtle uses of the program and are
ready to learn some of the more sophisticated treatment techniques.
Of course, after the second workshop the trainees continue to receive
consultation from the training staff on specific problems as well as a
phone call to review progress once every other week.
At each step in the training program the emphasis is on having the
trainees actually carry out the treatment procedures rather than just
having the trainees learn about them.
Mr. Lynch. Dr. Fixsen, what kind of financial support would a
community need to establish this kind of program ?
Dr. Fixsen. It takes about $50,000, at least in Kansas, to purchase
and renovate a home and to get a home started. We find many com-
munities often are able to come up with a portion of that money them-
selves through donations. But we find very often that smaller towns
or neighborhoods in large cities that are probably most in need of
group homes like this are unable to come up with sufficient funds to
start programs. So even though the $50,000 per hope startup cost
really isn't all that much, it is very difficult to come by presently be-
cause there are no alternative sources of funds.
Mr. Lynch. Your program has been operating for approximately 6
years ?
Dr. Fixsen. That is right.
Mr, Lynch. Is there additional research needed in your judgment,
or could other communities undertake this kind of program at this
time?
Dr. Fixsen. Yes, I think it certainly is possible. The research that
is needed right now is the research on training people how to become
teaching parents, because it is a very complicated task and involves
teaching the teaching parents to interact with a number of people out-
side of the home as well as the kids themselves. It is a very complex
skill. We are not yet sure what all of those skills are, but we feel prob-
ably 60 or 70 percent of those skills are identified at this point.
Mr. Lynch. Assuming other communities and other States wish to
adopt the Achievement Place model, how should the programs be
operated ? Should they be run by the State, by municipalities, private
groups ? What should your recommendation be ?
Dr. Fixsen. I think any of those are possible. Our recommendation
is to make the program as accountable to the community as possible. I
think that would involve having the Achievement Place in the com-
munity be directed by the people who represent the community, so the
group home can get feedback as to what the community people feel
about the program. Having that kind of board of directors is very
important.
Mr. Lynch. Your response would be there would be a mix of respon-
sibility as long as there was public community involvement ?
Dr. Fixsen. That is right. Community involvement at the level
where the board of directors have to be concerned about the day-to-day
policies that govern the home. Now, it may be, for example, that much
of the money that supports the kids comes through the department of
welfare. In the department of welfare, they have licensing require-
881
merits that must be met and they have a semiannual review of each
licensed home.
That kind of State policy establishes the minimal requirements the
program has to meet. But, as far as the State or any agency alone con-
trolling a number of group homes, I think that would be a mistake.
That task should be left up to community board of directors.
Dr. Wolf. I might add, there are many advantages to having com-
munity-controlled and directed group homes. In that way, you get com-
munity support. We have seen States go in to set up a home in the
community and communities turn them down because they don't want
anv outside youths brought into their community. They feel they
alreadv have'enough problems. But if it is the community's program
and they know the people on the board, then it is their program for
their problem youths. We haven't met any resistance in these cases.
Mr. Lynch. Dr. Wolf, how about when the program began? What
kind of community neighborhood response did you get ?
Dr. Wolf. There was some initial resistance. There were questions.
However, what saved the program was the Jaycees. It was their pro-
gram and it was the judge's program. It wasn't the university's pro-
gram or the State's program. We are still there at their invitation. We
are essentially advisers and consultants, and the nonprofit corporation
owns the home and sets the policy and continues to invite us to work
with them. Because it was the Jaycees and because it was the judge,
they were able to sell the program. If it had been the university or
State, I am not sure it would have been possible.
Mr. Lynch. How many youngsters can a program like this effi-
ciently serve and to serve that number, how many staff are required ?
Dr.' Wolf. In order to keep the program a family-style program, we
find six to eight youths to be an ideal number. If you go ahont eight
youths, the teaching parents are not able to maintain the individual
relationships that are necessary. These are six to eight very troubled
and troubling youths. This is really a horrendous task for teaching
parents, and tliey can do it because they work with the kids as they
come in, one at a time. You have the youths already in the program
learning and pretty well trained, and then a new youth comes in and
he can be socialized by the group and the teaching parents. A couple
of months later, the next youth comes in. If you have six or eight
youths in the program, you have a group that functions very well. If
you go above that, you start having higher turnover in your personnel
and you start having more complaints.
Mr. Lynch. You would definitely limit it to six or eight ?
Dr. Wolf. I would definitely limit the family size. I think if you
get much beyond that with these kids, you are not going to have an
effective, family-style approach.
Mr. Lynch. Doctor, if I may, speaking of families, while these
youngsters are in Achievement Place or a situation like Achievement
Place, what if anything is done for their parents ? Are they receiving
any kind of counseling, so when the kids return home they will have a
different home situation, which may have been part of their problem
to begin with ?
Dr. Wolf. Yes; it is almost always part of the problern. The youths
haven't learned the skills to make it in their families, their school, and
community. Their parents have not been able to teach them these skills.
882
have not been able to guide them in the way in which they need to be
guided, and have not been able to supervise them. Many of the families
have severe personal problems, alcoholism, and so forth. But with help
from a set of teaching parents, the family can make it often. They can
learn how to negotiate and compromise with their youth and how to
guide him. Even for parents who may have serious problems, the
teaching parents can supplement them for several months or years.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. McDonald?
Mr. McDonald. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Dr. Fixsen, can you tell
us basically what kind of offenses have the youths committed that are
committed to Achievement Place? What is the spectrum of offenses
committed ?
Dr. Fixsen. The only youths not considered for the program are
those who have committed violent crime, murder, forcible rape, those
kinds of things, where they would clearly be a danger to the other kids
in the program, to the children of the teaching parents and to them-
selves. Those kids are eliminated. From there on down, you have kids
who were adjudicated for breaking and entering, nonforcible rapes,
extended histories of shoplifting, and so forth. At one time we tabu-
lated the kinds of offenses, and about 70 to 80 percent of the offenses
were felony-type offenses.
Mr. McDonald. In the past 6 years, have you had any occasions of
fights between juveniles, destruction of property at the Achievement
Place; and in that context, have you ever been forced to send a juvenile
from Achievement Place to some other facility ?
Dr. Fixsen. We have never done that. As long as there is an oppor-
tunity to keep the youths in the community, and continue to work with
them, that is what we do. We haven't had instances of fights within the
home itself, although some of the kids, when they first come into the
family, do continue to get into mild difficulty at home or school in the
one instance, a boy was taken away from us by the court simply because
he committed aggravated assault.
Mr. McDonald. He was taken away ?
Dr. Fixsen. He was taken away. But in that case, the teaching par-
ents tried for a couple of weeks to keep the youth in the community and
give him one more chance. They felt they could still help the youth if
they had one more chance.
Mr. McDonald. You have an informal screening process whereby
the juveniles that will be admitted to Achievement Place most likely
will make it through without committing offenses while in Achieve-
ment Place ?
Dr. Fixsen. This is a screening process, but not on that basis. The
screening process is carried out in an interagency meeting that con-
sists of representatives from all of the child care agencies in town.
When the teaching parents have a vacancy coming up they ask the
screening committee who should be brought in next. They usually
recommend youths who are having difficulty in school, in their fami-
lies, and in the community. Usually the youth will be sent to an insti-
tution unless something is done like putting him in Achievement Place.
That youth will be the number one candidate.
As you saw in the followup data, the kids who have gone to the
boy's school look very comparable to the Achievement Place youths 1
year prior to coming in, in terms of offenses and school behaviors.
883
Mr. McDonald. That is what I was leading up to, whether in fact
your statistics are impressive after they were out of Achievement
Place. I was wondering whether they were impressive because the kids
you take in Achievement Place are better quality overall than those
who end up in the industrial school. Therefore, after they get out,
chances are they are going to be better.
Dr. FixsEN. An excellent question. What we have been doing for the
last 2 years is taking youths on a random basis. The interagency group
recommends two or three youths that look to be the best candidates
for Achievement Place because if they don't go to Achievement Place
they are going to be sent away. Out of that subject pool we will ran-
domly select one youth and follow up on the other youths. Unfortu-
nately we don't have that followup data yet. However, it looks like 70
or 80 percent of the youths we can't take are institutionalized.
Mr. McDonald. One more question on the teaching parent concept.
Do you know of any other States instituting this kind of program ?
Dr. Wolf. We have been contacted by a number of States and a num-
ber of agencies. Right now one of the graduates of our program — an
ex-teachmg parent, and also a graduate of our graduate program — is
setting up a program in North Carolina where he is going to set up a
series of these homes. That is the most dramatic example.
Mr. McDonald. At the University of North Carolina ?
Dr. Wolf. They are affiliated with Appalachian State University
and Western Carolina Center.
Mr. McDonald. As it is now, it is Kansas and North Carolina ?
Dr. Wolf. There are also other programs in other States. There is
one home in Maryland. We also have other teaching parents in homes
from Vermont to California. Now, there are about six teaching family
group homes in Kansas and about eight homes outside of Kansas.
Mr. McDonald. Thank you very much. I have no further questions,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Winn.
Mr. Winn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you. Dr. Wolf
and Dr. Fixsen, for a very fine presentation. I think this is exactly the
type of program that the committee has been looking for and I am very
anxious to see your material and your graphs incorporated in the final
report.
You referred to the point system, which I find sort of comparable to,
on a different scale, the Boy Scouts, or Cub Scouting, which I think is
very commendable and seems to work well in those two youth pro-
grams. How do they, or do they, differentiate the point system from
grade cards at school ? I imagine most of those young people are not
bubbly about school or grade cards, or some are school dropouts, I
suppose. I find it hard to visualize that they don't rebel against the
point system, because young people like that have rebelled against
grade cards.
Mr. FixsEN. The point system is designed in a way to make the
points fit the situation. If there is a youth who is showing a small ap-
propriate behavior, you can give him a small number of points. If it is
a very important behavior, such as getting all C's on the 9-week report
card, then there is a larger number of points. Plus, if the youths have
a complaint against the point system, they can bring it up at the
family conference and the youths and the teaching parents can discuss
the complaint and arrive at a solution.
884
Mr. Winn. The incentives, too, that you offer are different because
the incentives on the grade cards are nil.
Dr. FixsEN. Unless the parents were telling them, "Gee, you have
done a fine job" or "It looks like you are slipping in math, you have
to watch out on that." There is always that kind of feedback plus the
teaching parents can offer the youths points for doing well at school.
Mr. Winn. Doctor, have most of these kids been on drugs ?
Dr. FixsEN. Some of the kids have. In some of the programs, almost
all of the kids have. In Achievement Place, maybe a third to a half
have had drug-related types of offenses.
Mr. Winn. Out there mainly it's pot, isn't it ?
Dr. FixsEN. Yes. Mostly marihuana. Some of it is LSD, speed, those
kinds of things. To my knowledge, no youths have ever experimented
with heroin or other serious hard drugs.
Mr. Winn. I know both of you gentlemen are familiar with the
Menninger Cottage concept.
Dr. Wolf. The Village.
Mr. Winn. Yes, The same basic idea, in some places called the "cot-
tage concept." Have these cottages or villages been spread around?
The only point, I think you made it very strong, when you get into
that type operation, you get into a very expensive operation. But could
your program work with home of six to eight people and still have
several homes around a community campus type of thing ?
Dr. FixsEN. It probably could, provided each one was community
based. A community-based program requires the possibility of fre-
quent contacts with the parents and that the kids continue to go to
the various schools when they return. Often the opposite occurs when
you have the campus group home kind of concept. They may begin
simply and grow to have perhaps 6 homes which each hold 8 kids,
which means they have to have 48 kids. They may begin taking kids
from outside of the community simply for economic reasons.
Mr. Winn. Then you get a bad situation.
Dr. FixsEN. That is right especially when you lose contact with the
teachers.
Mr. Winn. You get fierce competition, and I suppose even within
Lawrence, Douglas County, because of the school situation, as you
say, most of them probably know each other and know someone the
other one knows. But you would still, if you had three or four houses
around the campus concept, you would have maybe competition be-
tween those homes that might not be very conducive to the philosophy,
which is trying to help the other guy, rather than beat his ears down
next door.
Dr. FixsEN. There is that possibility. For example, in the larger
urban areas in Johnson County, the Optimists Club there had one
home and now is setting up a second home.
Mr. Winn. Wliatdoyoucallit?
Dr. FixsEN. Optimists' Home For Boys. The second home is being
set up in another neighborhood. There are sufficient numbers of kids
in trouble to support two group homes. I don't see any competition
developing there.
Mr. Winn. But they are all next door to each other?
Dr. FixsEN. That is right. Same county.
885
Mr. Winn. Are they taking their homes to the trouble spots ?
Dr. FixsEN. That is exactly right.
Mr. Winn. In a little different vein, either one of you might an-
swer : I wonder why more universities liaven't become involved— and
you mentioned North Carolina— in projects like the University of
Kansas has. Have you talked to any of the other educators along this
line?
Dr. Wolf. There are a number of universities that would like to,
but funding is a problem. As Dr. Fixsen pointed out, there is funding
for basic research in the social sciences, basic research, laboratory
research, survey research, theoretical research, and then there is fund-
ing from LEAA for implementation research, but implementation on
a broad basis.
Mr. Winn. You don't get any LEAA ?
Dr. Wolf. Some of our homes do. Our present program is ready
for LEAA support for homes. But for social science generally there
has been no support for the intermediate research and development.
There has been little research funding between theory and imple-
mentation as occurs in engineering. For example, if an airplane
manufacturing company is going to build an airplane, they don't
go from the theory to widespread sales of airplanes. They build pro-
totypes which crash and turn in the wrong direction on the runway,
and have all kinds of problems. They keep doing research and de-
velopment until they have a model that works. They copy that and
that is what they produce.
In the social sciences, we try to go from textbook, generally, into the
implementation without the development phase and frequently we
fail. We have been very lucky in our Achievement Place program,
in that NIMH center for studies of crime and delinquency has sup-
ported our program for several years and encouraged us to do the
kind of research that brought us to where we are. We have been able
to do the applied research necessary.
But for applied social science in general this funding is very
limited and other universities are not obtaining funds from many
sources for doing the same thing. Another place money needs to be
made available is to the States for training and research and evalua-
tion of innovative community-based programs. I think that if money
were made available to State universities they would take an interest
in applied research programs like Achievement Place.
Mr. Winn. I think you make a good point. Southern Illinois Uni-
versity has been a leader in correctional education. I am wondering
along the same line of my original question, what the proper role of
the university in juvenile corrections is and how can the Federal
Government encourage universities to get involved, because univer-
sities get a pretty good chunk of Federal money.
Dr. Wolf. I think that Congress needs to reconsider the priorities.
I think it means that rather than money for basic research, more
money needs to be given for applied research. In the past, I think
there has been an overemphasis in universities on basic research. We
now have lots of theory but not much good applied social science
research.
Mr. Winn. You started out with research ?
886
Dr. Wolf. Yes ; basic research.
Mr. Winn. So somebody had to do it to create your program ?
Dr. Wolf. Absolutely ; very important.
Mr. Winn. Then you put your research into a practical solution.
It sounds very good. Now we are trying to find out how you get money,
you and other similar programs around the country, to use what they
found out in basic research all of these years. How you separate it
financially from the university, would be the real tough one.
Dr. FixsEN. I am not sure how you would go about that, but to
form the basic research and the development of principles, you still
have to work out the method of application like in the airplane ex-
periment Dr. Wolf was describing. When you try to implement it,
you probably fail the first time or two. You need to be able to use
that failure as feedback about the parts of the program that need to
be changed. It is at this level of applied research that we need money
for university research. It is going to cost money to convert the results
of basic research into effective programs and no one seems to under-
stand that.
Mr. Winn. I don't know how you do it either. I am familiar with
KU's operation, I am familiar with a lot of funding they get. I didn't
mean to separate the university from your program. I meant separate
money you would get not just for research in the educational part,
but from the practical operation of your program, and that might be
kind of hard to sell back to the Federal Government by the
university.
Dr. Wolf. That isn't so much a problem. The LEAA funding and
the Department of Social Welfare, these are tied into our programs
and we are connected with them. They are the ones who implement
the programs. The Federal research money has allowed us to do basic
and applied research.
Mr. Winn. LEAA is Federal money.
Dr. Wolf. That is right. It isn't universitv money. The communi-
ties in Kansas apply for those funds from the State. Then the com-
munities come to us and say, "OK, would you help us set up a pro-
gram and train teaching parents and help us evaluate them," and
so forth.
Mr. Winn. I am sure the chairman has some questions.
Chairman Pepper. Go right ahead.
Mr. Winn. I have one more question.
How many teaching-parent tea,ms have you trained, and how many
are now in training ?
Dr. FixsEN. There has been a total of 18 couples who have gone
through the training program, and 15 of those couples are still tea,ch-
ing parents.
Chairman Pepper. How many are you educating now ? It is ongoing
isn't it?
Dr. FixsEN. Yes ; it is a small program at present. As Dr. Wolf sug-
gested, we have asked for a training grant from NIMH and if the
funds are forthcoming, we will be able to take 15 or 20 couples every
year.
Mr. Winn. If you mentioned that, I missed it, and maybe we had
better underline it when the final report comes out.
887
Dr. FixsEN. That is right. Our application for a training program
is now under review by NIMH.
Mr. Winn. I hope your program sounds as good to them and
deserves the merit I think it does.
By the way, I have never been there, but I would like to come by.
Dr. Wolf. Please do; visit the boys' and girls' home and the Opti-
mist Home, in Kansas City.
i\Ir. Winn. I have heard of it. I didn't know it was the same type of
operation.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Pepper. I was very much interested in what you said
about the availability and nonavailability of Federal funds for these
teaching programs, which you call "teacher parent." The teacher
parent is primarily the person who runs the home ?
Dr. FixsEN. Exactly.
Chairman Pepper. There are no Federal funds generally available
for that type thing available through LEAA ?
Mr. Wolf. It is a new concept.
Chairman Pepper. LEAA has been helping?
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Chairman Pepper. Largely through capital for building?
Mr. Wolf. Right.
Dr. FixsEN. The money that is missing from LEAA is money for
research and evaluation of those programs, especially now while it is
still in the experimental stage, to see if other communities can set up
similar programs and if they can be as successful as achievement
place. What is missing at this point is the money to followup on the
kids who leave these new programs.
Chairman Pepper. AVhat was the LEAA money used for with
respect to Achievement Place ?
Dr. FixsEN. With respect to Achievement Place, we have none
immediately involved. Other programs in Kansas and other States
have used the LEAA money partially for the startup costs and for
some of the salaries for the teaching parents for the first year.
Chairman Pepper. This would be a good time to aks the question we
are very much interested in. What Federal financial assistance have
you asked for any aspect of the program dealing with the treatment
and attempted rehabilitation of delinquent youth, youth who commit
crimes and who are brought in to some sort of restraint and custody ?
What do you suggest this committee recommend to the Congress as
something that we should do from the Federal level in respect to this
problem of juvenile crime and delinquency ?
Dr. Fixsen. I can start answering that. I would think one thing that
is needed is the money for startup costs. Some of this is available
through LEAA. Some communities, particularly poor inner-city com-
munities, have no real means of getting the money other than from
outside sources. No foundations or benefactors in their community. I
think in urban communities particularly, you are going to need some
full funding of the startup cost programs.
Another thing needed along with that legislation is the requirement
those programs be evaluated.
888
Chairman Pepper. You think that would be a proper Federal func-
tion, sort of in the nature of guidelines?
Dr. FixsEN. Exactly. Kind of like licensing requirements of group
homes. In terms of the Federal money, I think they require some kind
of accountability, some kind of evaluation of the consumers' satisfac-
tion with the program.
Chairman Pepper. Teacher training program would be another?
Dr. FixsEN. Yes. If we get our NIMH grant, we will have a training
program in Kansas. But in other States interested in having a training
program like ours, they will want to send people to be trained by us
initially and then to go out and set up similar training programs. They
will need funds to do that.
Chairman Pepper. Do you think Federal funds will be needed for
the operation of these innovative programs for the treatment and
rehabilitation of delinquent youth?
Dr. Fixsen. Yes, I think particularly in terms of the startup costs,
evaluation costs, and training costs.
Chairman Pepper. But do you think that will be necessary as con-
tinuing in effect?
Dr. FixsEX. It looks to me right now that it will be.
Chairman Pepper. Whsit about the cost of keeping the young people
in the home in the teacher facility ? As Dr. Harder mentioned this
morning, right now a considerable amount of money is being used
through the aid to dependent children foster care — money which comes
through the State, partially Federal, partially State.
What would be the most likely approach Congress would adopt, if
they adopt one at all ; would it be to advise that funds be available for
nearly all of the different categories of aid in the innovation, and
frequently with the basic programs for deliquent youth, but probably
conditioned upon the States and/or local communities giving satis-
factory assurance they can operate a much safer setup. Wouldn't you
think that would be most likely the Federal approach ?
Dr. FixsEN. I think that will be a good approach for initial legisla-
tion, but that for those innovative programs already in existence, then
there needs to be additional money available to try that program out
in other communities in urban areas, in rural areas, with other kinds
of kids, to make sure this is really something that would be applicable
on a national scale. It is again the intermediate step we referred to.
Chairman Pepper. How do you evaluate the need for effective pro-
grams in dealing with delinquents or criminal justice, or youths that
commit crimes in respect to the overall crime problem ? How important
is this area ?
Dr. Fixsen. I think it is probably critical. I think from successful
programs we will learn how to develop prevention programs. For ex-
889
ample, as you identify ways of working with the parents of the kids
in a treatment program, you may work out ways of working with
other parents and other siblings in the home.
Chairman Pepper. I like all aspects, but I was particularly attracted
by one provision of your State social welfare program, that before you
do anything, even take the boy or girl out of the home, you see if you
can't save the home.
Dr. Wolf. That is right.
Chairman Pepper. Save the family. Help that family a little bit. It
may be if wise social counseling went into that home they might be
able to identify the estrangement of the parents, help one or the other
or both of the parents get a job, they might be able to do enough to
save the child; then if that child is falling behind in school and is
likely to become a dropout they might arrange for some extra tutoring,
extra assistance for that boy or girl. That is the kind of need. There
are so many families that don't have our good fortune of being able to
meet the needs in general of our environment, and they are struggling
to try to survive. It is a very different environmental problem, the sit-
uation that they have. If a little help, and particularly a little care, a
little concern, is exhibited by somebody it may save not only a family
but a child in the family.
Dr. FixsEN. Exactly right. Very important.
Chairman Pepper. So the conclusion you reach is the money we
wisely spend in this area is likely to be money saved from people that
will be spared from becoming victims of crime.
Dr. FixsEN. Plus the initial savings.
Chairman Pepper. In addition to that, maintaining them in some
sort of correctional institution after they committed more serious and
objectional crime.
Dr. FixsEN. Plus the benefits we are now having.
Chairman Pepper. Plus saving boys and girls for constructive lives,
rather than destructive lives.
Dr. Fixsen. Exactly.
Chairman Pepper. Gentlemen, I want to commend my colleagues
here and all of you for the very forward look, the imaginative and
innovative concepts that you are entertaining in Kansas and the very
fine work you are doing in this area. When we had our hearings in
Kansas City, Kans., I was very much impressed there by many things
I observed. You have a very fine program underway. We want to
commend the university for what it has done.
Thank you very much.
Dr. Fixsen. We really appreciate the invitation to be here.
[The following material was received from Dr. Fixsen :]
890
THE ACHIEVEMENT PLACE MODEL
Background
Juvenile delinquency is a serious problem in Lawrence, Kansas and nationally.
Many attempts have been made to tind a solution to the problem. Some show
promise. The Achievement Place model is proving to be an example tor other
programs intended to reeducate delinquent youths. Numerous psychologists,
psychiatrists, social workers, teachers and citizens have written for information
about Achievement Place. This publication is designed to provide general in-
formation about the program. In addition, a film. Achievement Place, has been
produced to show a day in the lives of the boys in the program. The film is available
on loan for a nominal handling and mailing fee from the University of Kansas
Audio Visual Center, 5 Bailey Hall, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas
66044. Other homes, one for girls, have been established in Kansas. Other com-
munities across the nation are also establishing homes based on the Achievement
Place model.
Introduction
Achievement Place is a residential treatment facility for delinquent or
dependent neglected boys in Lawrence, Kansas. After more than three years of
research and planning, the teaching parents and staff at Achievement Place have
developed a model treatment program to improve the academic, social and self-
care behaviors of youths who are (or are about to be) suspended from school, who
are in trouble in the community, and who are thought by their parents to be "un
controllable." In a cooperative effort involving the Juvenile Court, the County
Department of Social Welfare, school officials, and teaching-parents, boys who
have been adjudicated by the Juvenile Court are sent to Achievement Place for an
indefinite period of time.
Community Responsibility
The treatment program is community-controlled and is thus responsive to the
unique characteristics of the community or neighborhood it serves. This
responsiveness is ensured by placing the responsibility for the physical facility and
its financial matters in the hands of a local Board of Directors. The Board of
Directors, in cooperation with the teaching-parents, local school officials. Juvenile
Court officials, representatives of local church groups, and other interested
citizens, select the specific goals of the treatment program. The Board of Directors
is represented on the Candidate Selection Committee. The committee also includes
a school official, a Juvenile Court official, a social worker from the welfare
department, and the teaching-parents. This committee selects candidates who are
most in need of treatment, boys who are the greatest threat to the community, the
schools, and the homes. The Board of Directors is also responsible for periodically
evaluating the treatment program and recommending changes. Thus, through the
Board of Directors, the community has control of (and responsibility for) the
entire program.
891
Community-Based Program
The treatment program is community-based. Each boy's problems are dealt
with in his community, in his school, in his home, and in his peer group. When a boy
enters the program he continues to attend his own school. Thus the teaching-
parents, in cooperation with the boy's teachers, can help solve his problems in that
setting. Weekend home visits are encouraged and teaching-parents have trequent
discussions with the boy's parents concerning problems and improvements.
Furthermore, Achievement Place provides a new peer group. Each boy who en-
ters the program comes under the influence of a peer group already working
toward the goals of the program. Thus, both the peers and the teaching-parents
serve as examples of appropriate behavior. Even after a boy leaves the program
he can remain a member of the Achievement Place peer group and continue to
visit the home, eat an occasional meal there, or spend the night. The continuing
support the youth receives from his peers is an important aspect of the treatment
program at Achievement Place. Another advantage of having a community -based
program is that persons in the community can see the changes in behavior. This
often leads to further improvements in behavior because persons who were once
critical begin to treat the boys more warmly.
Family-Style Living
The program offers family-style but professional treatment. In the original
Achievement Place, and in other programs based on this model, professional
teaching-parents live in the facility 24 hours a day with a "family" of six to eight
boys or girls between 11 and 16 years of age. Having a small group allows the
teaching parents to interact extensively with each youth and thus produce the
greatest amount of change in the shortest period of time. The teaching-parents and
the youths come to know each other quite well and there is ample opportunity for
social behaviors which occur only in small family groups. One further advantage
of a family style treatment program is that it can be used by communities of any
size. Small rural communities may require only one treatment facility. Urban
settings may require facilities scattered throughout the community. In larger
communities, some treatment facilities may "specialize" and take boys (or girls)
who are having a specific type of difficulty in school or in the community. Even in
larger communities, however, each family-style, community-based facility should
be controlled by the citizens of the immediate area. This ensures community
cooperation and accountability.
Professional Teaching-Parents
The treatment program is directed by a pair of professionally trained teaching-
parents. Their explicit duty is to educate the youths in academic, social, and self-
help skills. Academic training (an M.A. program in human development with a
specialization for teaching parents) aids the teaching parents in their educational
duties. Their college training includes behavior modification procedures, remedial
education techniques, juvenile law, and community relations.
892
Systematic Treatment Program
The Achievement Place Model also emphasizes individual behavioral treat-
ment in a group setting. Since no two youths have identical backgrounds or
identical problems, the treatment is individualized. The treatment program and
specific behavioral goals for each youth are based on behaviors that members of
his family, his school, his community, and the teaching-parents believe should be
changed. The motivation system is uniquely suited to changing the individual
behaviors of the delinquent or dependent neglected boy or girl.
Program Evaluation
The treatment program is based on a motivational system which provides
constant feedback to the teaching-parents concerning the daily progress of each
youth. The overall treatment is also evaluated by routinely following the progress
of each youth after he leaves the program. Modifications in the program are made
on the basis of what particular difficulties the youth encounters after he leaves the
program. In addition, specific procedures for changing behaviorsare evaluated by
the teaching parents who observe and record the effects of various procedures
under controlled conditions. Evaluation at all three levels (individual progress,
overall program, and specific procedure) is necessary in order to refine the
treatment program and imprpve its efficiency.
Application of Treatment
The overall treatment program and the specific procedures contained within it
are designed to produce desired changes in the goal behaviors and yet to be suf-
ficiently practical to allow application by teaching-parents. Researchers have too
often developed programs which can be used only by other similarly trained
researchers. To guard against that, the Achievement Place research staff has
concentrated on developing procedures which can be effectively used by the
professional teaching-parents. For example, the teaching-parents learn to use the
youths themselves as "peer-trainers." They also seek help from untrained
volunteers in the community to help carry out the treatment program.
The Achievement Place model is sufficiently developed to allow general ap-
plication by other communities. There are still a number of needed refinements,
goal behaviors which need to be better defined, and treatment procedures which
need evaluation. Nevertheless, the program is ready for replication. Thus, the
staff, in cooperation with the University of Kansas, conducts an experimental
training program for professional teaching-parents. The training program takes
about a year. It involves course work and extensive supervised practical ex-
perience in an Achievement Place style setting. Successful completion of the
training program results in a certificate (for persons without college degrees) or
an MA. degree in Human Development.
893
Cost Compared to Troditjonal Treatment
The cost of an Achievement Place style program is substantial. However, it is
much less expensive than traditional programs in large state institutions. In 1971,
the operating costs were approximately $3,600 per year for each youth in an
Achievement Place style setting with six youths. This compares with operating
costs of between $8,500 and $9,000 per boy per year at the Kansas Boys Industrial
School.
Initial costs are also much greater for institutional programs. It costs between
$20,000 and $30,000 per bed to construct a state institution. It costs between $6,000
and $8,000 per bed to purchase and renovate an existing older home in a com-
munity.
894
THE ACHIEVEMENT PLACE
TREATMENT PROGRAM
Purposef
The primary goal of the Achievement Place program is to help youths who are
having difficulty with their environment. The first preference is to keep the youths
with their original family if possible. Community agency personnel such as social
workers, probation officers and school counselors, aid parents in correcting home
conditions prior to the youth's referral to Achievement Place. Achievement Place
gains custody of the child only after community service workers have done all they
can and have suggested that the Juvenile Court remove the child from his home.
When thechild is removed from his original home he is placed in the custody of
the teaching parents at Achievement Place. The goal of Achievement Place is to
help the youths become secure, well-adjusted, and useful citizens by providing a
home style, family environment in which sincere affection and understanding are
combined with fair and consistent discipline, instruction, and feedback.
Affection and understanding, as important as they are, do not by themselves
guarantee that a child will stop coming to the attention of the Juvenile Court. Nor
can affection and understanding by themselves be expected to always lead to the
development of acceptable behaviors in troubled youths. Normal youths learn
appropriate behavior through many years of close and pleasant association
combined with instruction and discipline from a father and mother. Most troubled
youths have not had that experience.
At Achievement Place, teaching-parents modify undesirable and anti-social
behavior whi' developing new and appropriate behavior patterns. At the same
time they build a strong psychological foundation with which the child can face the
difficulties he will encounter during and following adolescence. This difficult task
requires a special type of care, instruction and discipline.
Why Spare the Rod?
It is not unusual for parents to discipline children using methods detrimental to
the behavior change desired. For example, if a youngster i^ to be home from
school by 4:00, but does not make it home until 7:00, a highly probable consequence
would be a spanking, a reduction in privileges, a severe bawling out, and a cold
shoulder for a short but unpleasant period of time.
This type of interaction usually gets the job done (has the youth home on time)
but it has many drawbacks.
1. If the punishment is upheld it leaves no room for reconciliation. That is, if the
punishment is final, what the child does between the onset of the punishment and
its completion may obscure the reason for the punishment and result in
misbehaviors. Thus, the child may make no attempt to get along but may rather
torment his parents with additional but minor infractions of rules. On the other
hand, the parent may spoil the discipline by permitting the youth to have a
"restricted" privilege, rationalizing that "it won't hurt this time."
2. It withdraws adult attention when it may be most needed. The adult's
reasons for administering the punishment and the youth's questions and reactions
to the punishment may never be discussed because the parent feels it is necessary
to be angry and unfriendly to make the punishment effective.
895
3. The level of punishment can seldom be matched to the magnitude of the
misbehavior. There is a limited number of events and privileges parents may
manipulate for disciplinary purposes. Thus, a small rule infraction may receive
the same punishment as a larger infraction because no alternatives are available.
4. There is little opportunity to give rewards, other than praise, because other
events which are rewarding to the child are not always available. If the system
permits more powerful types of rewards to be employed, the desired behavior will
occur more often.
5. If the punitive action is too severe, there is no way to take the punishment
back. There may still be rare occasions when physical restraint is needed in order
to protect persons or property; however, punishment is not the answer to most
behavior problems.
The Token Reinforcement System
It is best if discipline can be maintained without reducing the quality of social
interaction and instruction which is required if the child is to achieve stable and
normal behavioral adjustment. He must be able to describe and discuss his own
reactions and to understand the reasoning of others regarding rules and discipline.
In order to accomplish this task, a token economy is used in Achievement Place to
aid and speed up the job of re socialization. The token etonomy (or the point
system as the boys call it) may be used for discipline while the social relationship
between the parent and child goes undamaged. The point system is also used to
strengthen appropriate behavior to insure that it will occur more often.
If a youth on the point system returns late he knows the penalty before walking
in the door. Almost all behaviors which earn or lose points are formalized and
advertised on a bulletin board. Thus, there is no argument over the youth's
behavior. The fine is delivered but it is not necessary for anger to be expressed.
Normal relationships never need to be interrupted. The teaching-parent may have
his arm around the boy's shoulder and be discussing how the boy can earn back the
lost points at the same time discipline is being delivered. If a specific fine is too
large, it can simply be reduced. It is difficult to do that if harsh words or spankings
enter into the discipline.
How the System Works
The point system allows the boys at Achievement Place to earn points for ap-
propriate behavior and to lose points for inappropriate behavior.
Points earned can be exchanged for items and events available in the home.
Access to these privileges is obtained on a weekly (or daily) basis. At the end of
each week (day) the boys trade the points for privileges during the next week
(day).
The point system is designed to provide immediate feedback to a boy im-
mediately upon entering the program. Then, as his skills and self control develop,
the highly structured point system is gradually withdrawn and replaced by a more
natural set of feedback conditions. The training is designed to teach the boys to be
productive and responsible under the natural feedback conditions of most homes,
schools and jobs. When a boy earns his way out of the point system and into an
honor system he must be ready to accept a great deal of freedom along with many
896
Some Behaviors Which Earn Points
Watching TV news or reading the newspaper
Cleaning and maintaining a neat room
Keeping personally neat and clean
Reading appropriate books
Aiding teaching-parents in household tasks
Doing dishes
Being well-dressed tor the evening meal or special occasion
Pertorming homework
Obtaining desirablegrades on school report cards
Turning lights out when not in use
Some Behaviors Which Lose Points
Failing grades on report cards
Speaking aggressively
Forgetting to wash hands betore meals
Arguing
Disobeying
Being late
Displaying poor manners
Engaging in poor posture
Using poor grammar
Stealing, lying, or cheating
Privileges Which May Be Earned Each Week With Points
Allowance
Bicycle
Television
Games
Snacks
Permission to go downtown or visit natural home
Permission to stay up past bedtime
Permission to come home late atter school
897
responsibilities. If his behavior indicates that he needs more experience with the
support of the point system he loses his new status and returns to the point system.
He can then again earn his way off of the point system. Once a boy demonstrates
his ability to exercise self-control, to take responsibility for his own behavior, and
to work productively in the home and in the school, he is ready to be returned to his
own homeor toa permanent foster family.
The family receives counseling in behavioral management practices. The boy's
progress with his family and in school is followed closely for several months.
During this follow-up period the boy can be returned to Achievement Place if the
family and teaching-parents decide that is desirable.
How Do the Boys View the System?
The boys, in most cases, seem to enjoy the opportunity to earn their own way. It
appears to make every day a challenge. It seems to make them realize that
freedom and the other privileges we often take for granted are not "free" but must
be earned.
The point system shapes the teaching-parents as well as the youths. When a boy
does something right, the point system requires that he be rewarded. Thus, the
system ensures that both the teaching-parent and the youth perform their roles
appropriately.
Who Makes the Rules?
After a few weeks of training in self-government, the boys (in most cases)
decide if a certain behavior should be changed. They also set the cost for violating
rules. The boys conduct a court in which they sit in judgment of rule violations.
However, there are some rules over which they have no control . These rules (in
many cases municipal, county, state or federal laws) must be upheld. For
example, many boys have long histories of truancy and failure in school. If given a
choice they would probably choose not to go to school. The task of the program is to
make success in school rewarding to them.
What Research Goes on at Achievement Place?
The research at Achievement Place is an attempt to design an educational
environment and to describe the environment and the progress of the boys as
objectively as possible. Careful records of behavior are kept to allow continuous
evaluation of progress in the home and at school.
Part of the training program includes the use of closed circuit television. The
educational television is used to train the boys in social behavior. The boys run the
television themselves. They make video-tapes of interactions such as solving an
argument, the proper way to greet adults, and the basic skills of leadership. The
boys play these tapes back and discuss the good and bad points. They observe how
they improve over time. Also, the tapes can be replayed to objectively evaluate the
effectiveness of television in training social skills. Thus, it is sometimes difficult to
separate the research from the training.
898
How Successful is the Program?
Thefirstand most important measureof success will be the long-term behavior
of the boys who have lived in Achievement Place. If in later years these boys live
productive and law-abiding lives the program will clearly have been a success. But
we cannot wait 10 or 20 years to evaluate and make adjustments. There must be
more timely measures of how the boys are performing. If the boys can cope in a
miniature model of the "grown up" world they will make it on their own. Thus, we
attempt to use their behavior in the home and school and in the community as a
measure of the effects of the program. The immediate success of the program is
impressive. Once the boys enter the home there are almost no unpleasant contacts
with the law because they are no longer law violators. The schools report that they
"are new boys." One boy has advanced two grades in one normal year. But the
biggest change can be seen in the boys themselves. They take pride in their
achievements and enjoy their new-found responsibilities.
899
THE ACHIEVEMENT PLACE
EDUCATION PROGRAM
Most boys who come to Achievement Place are in academic trouble. They
frequently have long histories of truancy, tardiness and disruptive classroom
behavior. In addition, they may be one or more grade levels behind or on the
borderline of failure. Unless remedial steps are taken, they will more than likely
become school "drop-outs." The Achievement Place education program seeks to
correct academic deficiencies to prevent drop-outs. This program is integrated
with the overall treatment system currently employed by the teaching-parents at
Achievement Place.
The academic failure of these boys is probably the result of a great many
factors operating simultaneously, but the key to the problem appears to be
motivation. It appears that the boys just "don't care" about school or getting an
education. They see no connection between doing well in school and success in
later life. One possible way toovercome this difficulty is to bring the consequences
of a good education closer to the actual learning.
To do this each boy begins by taking a "daily report card" to school each day
for each class (seeexample).
Teachers are asked to check "yes" or "no" to certain behaviors observed
during the class period. The grade in the second two categories is initially set on
the level the student is currently performing. The teaching-parents do not ask too
much of him at first. The level required is gradually raised over a period of months
until it is acceptable.
Teachers have given this system their approval and support. It causes them
very little inconvenience but it is very effective. Several teachers have permitted
Achievement Place staff members to observe their classes in order to objectively
evaluate the results of the system. Before taking the daily report card, the boys
Daily Report Card
Name:
Class:
Yes
No
D D
studied and obeyed the rules for the whole period.
I I I I Completed homework assignmenton time and got at least
Earned at least on quiz or exam.
Date: Teachers signature:
900
spent about 25 percent of their time in appropriate study behavior. While taking
the card; however, their study behavior usually increased to almost 90 percent. In
addition, an average of one letter grade increase for the 9-weeks report cards was
common for most boys using the daily report card. We are working out a way to
slowly remove this supportive system so the boys may be returned to the normal
feedback system of 9 weeks report cards while still retaining their good study
behavior.
THE ACHIEVEMENT PLACE
HOMEWARD BOUND PROGRAM
As the boys at Achievement Place move through the rehabilitation program
they gain more and more freedom by accepting more responsibility. At
Achievement Place the boys learn new social skills needed to maintain good
relations with their peers, teachers, parents, and other adults. Their academic
skills are improved by study habits taught at Achievement Place and by daily
"report cards" which provide immediate feedback to each boy for his academic
and social behavior in each class heattends. The boys also learn how to maintain a
clean and orderly house; they are taught how to make beds, clean bathrooms,
dust, sweep floors and wash dishes. When the boys "graduate" from the
Achievement Place program, they are capable of contributing to their natural
home and to the community.
The Homeward Bound program is designed to maintain the social, academic,
and self-help skills by providing for a two- to six-month (or longer if necessary)
transition period during which personnel from Achievement Place maintain close
contact with the parents of each homeward bound boy. Initially the boy goes home
for weekends and continues to live at Achievement Place during the week. Each
boy learns how to plan his weekend time so he will avoid the problems which
originally caused him to be placed in Achievement Place. His parents learn to use
the techniques successfully employed at Achievement Place so that they can
maintain their son's newly learned skills.
During the next phase of the Homeward Bound program the boy lives at home
full-time while Achievement Place personnel maintain close contact with the boy
and his parents. As the parents become more proficient in guiding their son's
behavior, the Achievement Place personnel assume a more indirect role and turn
more of the responsibilities over to the parents. The parents eventually assume full
responsibility for their son's behavior.
In the event of a reoccurrence of delinquent behavior, or if some previously
unknown problem arises, the boy may be returned to Achievement Place for
further training. This is a necessary aspect of the Homeward Bound program since
there is no guarantee that the boy has learned the quantity or quality of social and
academic skills necessary to get along without the support of the rehabilitation
program at Achievement Place.
The Homeward Bound program is designed to maintain the skills acquired at
Achievement Place by providing a gradual transition into the home, by educating
the parents in the techniques used at Achievement Place, and by providing con-
tinued support to the boy after he has returned home.
901
What Keeps Them on the Right Track?
The boy's parents are trained to apply behavioral management techniques used
at Achievement Place. Close contact between the boy's parents and Achievement
Place personnel is maintained for several months. This ensures that the home
environment is changed to prevent future misbehaviors.
Each boy changes considerably at Achievement Place. He learns to take pride
in helping others, he learns how to handle responsibility, and he acquires a new
pattern of behavior which shows self-confidence. For these reasons, the parents do
not have much difficulty with the boy. Discipline is no longer the major parent-
child contact.
Finally, there are usually younger children at home. By learning how to control
the behavior of their son returning from Achievement Place, parents become
better prepared to cope with the problems of their younger children. Many pre-
delinquent behaviors in younger children can thus be changed before they come to
the attention of the juvenile authorities.
What if the Parents Refuse to Cooperate?
Although it is most desirable to return the boy to his natural home, there are at
least two possible alternatives if the parents are uncooperative or incapable of
fulfilling their parental obligations. One is to let the boy remain at Achievement
Place until he is 18 years old. This is not particularly desirable since other boys
more in need of the rehabilitation program at Achievement Place will not be able
to participate until room is made for them.
The other alternative is to arrange for a foster home through the local welfare
agency. Foster parents can be trained in much the same way as the natural
parents. The boy then goes through a transition period from Achievement Place to
his new foster home.
902
HOW TO START AN ACHIEVEMENT
PLACE STYLE PROGRAM
The necessary resources are available in most communities to begin an
Achievement Place style program. However, much effort is required to organize
these resources into a program.
Board of Directors
Begin by contacting citizens and public and private agencies such as the
juvenile court, the county department of welfare, public schools, the model cities
department, and the mental health clinic. Meet with representatives from these
agencies and determine if there really is a need for a home-style treatment
program. If a need exists, begin a loosely knit association of representatives and
other interested citizens who are willing to work toward the development of the
program. Eventually this informal association will evolve into a Board of Direc-
tors with formal responsibility for the program.
State Health Department
In most states, group homes are licensed according to guidelines describing the
requirements for the physical facilities, the administration of the program, and
the duties of the personnel. Write or phone your state Health Department and ask
for a copy of these guidelines and licensing requirements. Also ask for someone to
consult with you about developing a group home in your community.
The House
You will want a large home to renovate. Some planners have suggested new
construction for group homes, but this has many disadvantages. New construction
costs more, it is less like a "real home," and it is more likely to be viewed as an
"institution" by the community. In most communities there are several large
older homes which can be purchased at a reasonable figure Such homes need a
great deal of renovation, but they can be made extremely home-like and com-
fortable at moderate cost. Also, each one is unique, providing individual
character.
There are several things to consider in the renovation. Renovation should be
carried out in consultation with the local fire marshal and health department, both
of whom will likely be involved in licensing the house. The renovation should also
meet the physical requirements of the professional teaching-parents. Remember
that the teaching-parents need privacy and space to make them comfortable. They
will also need a nursery or second bedroom if they have children of their own.
An additional problem in choosing a home is meeting the local zoning
requirements. It has been our experience that when the first home is introduced
into a community the neighbors are not terribly happy with the idea. This is un-
derstandable. They have legitimate fears of strangers coming into their neigh-
borhood with a program for "delinquents" which in some manner might, for all
903
they know, endanger their children, the value ot their homes, and perhaps their
very lives. The neighbors all need to be contacted and reassured. They need to
understand that the teaching parents are professionals and have been trained to
handle youths with behavior problems. They need to be reassured that the
"family" will not really be much larger than a typical large family. The neighbors
need to be encouraged to contact the teaching-parents any time even a small
problem involving one of the youths occurs. This is exactly what the teaching-
parents want. The teaching-parents need to know each time a youth walks over a
yard without permission, throws a rock at a cat, or says an unkind word to a child.
These behaviors can then be dealt with and corrected by the teaching-parents.
Thus, while occasional inappropriate behaviors may occur in the neighborhood,
the teaching parent family will probably, in most respects, be more responsible
and more effective in controlling their youths than many of the "normal" families
in the neighborhood. In any event, establishing the first home may cause some
problems with the neighbors. Thus, an education program for the neighbors is
needed.
Financing the Program
There are many sources of funds for establishing and operating Achievement
Place style homes. Contacts with several agencies should be established. Begin by
approaching the county department of welfare and the state department of
welfare. A new agency in every state now concerned with establishing community-
based correctional programs is the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
(LEAA) which is funded by the federal government. Each state has it's own
agency which receives block grant funds from the federal LEAA. Contact the
governor's office in your state for the name of the LEAAagnecy.
Private groups may dedicate effort and money toward establishing a home. Be
sure to contact the local chapter of the JayCees, the Junior League, the Optimists,
as well as the churches and individuals who are known to make contributions to
worthy causes.
Financial needs can be broken into two classes; start-up costs and operating
costs. Included in start-up costs will be the funds for purchasing or making a down
payment on the home, renovation of the home, as well as the first few months of
operating costs. The operating costs will include the salaries of the professional
teaching-parents, food, clothing, utilities, transportation costs, etc. Operating
costs may be obtained from such agencies as the juvenile court or the county and
state welfare agencies. In Kansas, welfare will pay between S250 and $300 per
month per youth for Achievement Place style programs. This is almost enough to
cover operating expenses. Start-up costs will probably be about $50,000 per home.
While this is a great deal of money, this sum can often be obtained from a com-
bination of agencies including the state LEAA and private organizatio(*is such as
the JayCees, Junior League and church groups. There is a real need for federal
legislation to help communities by providing these start-up costs. At the present
time there is no federal agency with the responsibility for helping communities
establish these programs. Nevertheless, funds are currently available to be used
to develop Achievement Place style programs. It merely takes time and a
determined effort to coordinate these resources and secure the funding necessary
to support an Achievement Place style home designed to make a realistic con-
tribution to the rehabilitation of disadvantaged youths.
904
Achievement Place was established and continues to be supported and
directed by the citizens ot Lawrence, Kansas. The research program has
been supported by a grant trom the National Institute ot Mental Health
(Center tor Studies of Crime and Delinquency) to the Bureau of Child
Research and the Department of Human Development, University of
Kansas.
For further information write to:
Elery L. Phillips, Ph.D.
Achievement Place
1320 Haskell
Lawrence, Kansas 66044
913 843 5560
Dean L. Fixsen, Ph.D.
Bureau of Child Research
University of Kansas
211 New Haworth
Lawrence, Kansas 66044
913 843 8280
Montrose AA. Wolf, Ph.D.
Department of Human Development
University of Kansas
211 New Haworth
Lawrence, Kansas 66044
913864-3319
905
Community-Based, Family-Style Gboup Homes
Group homes provide treatment services for court adjudicated delinquent,
pre-delinquent, emotionally disturbed, mildly retarded, and dependent-neglected
youths and their families.
Group homes provide services for youths 10 to 18 years old with six to eight
youths in each home.
Group homes primarily provide services to youths from the county, city, or
neighborhood where the group home is located but can accept older out-of -county
youths if this is needed.
Group homes are community-based in that each youth continues to attend the
same school, maintains frequent contact with his parents, and remains in his
own community.
Group homes provide services to local youths, which greatly facilitates treat-
ment and makes possible extensive aftercare services to each youth and his
family that helps to ensure each youth's success and may serve to prevent fur-
ther delinquency among his siblings.
Group homes are operated by local Boards of Directors made up of responsible
community members who hire the staff, have responsibility for financing and for
the physical facility, and supervise the operation of the house ; this community
control helps to ensure community cooperation and accountability.
Group homes are operated by house-parents or professional teaching-parents
who live in the facility and provide a pleasant, family-style treatment program
and teach the youths critical social, academic, self-care, and community-living
skills.
Group homes cost less than institutionalization with a cost of about $350 per
youth per month for operating expenses (compared to about $800 per youth per
month for institutions) and an original cost of about $6,000 per bed to purchase,
renovate and furnish a large, older home (compared to about $25,000 per bed to
construct an institution).
Group homes often are 80% to 90% successful while other treatment programs
often have only 40% to 60% success.
Group homes can be readily evaluated by the Juvenile Court, Department of
Welfare, school oflBcials and teachers, members of the Board of Directors, the
youths' parents, and the youths themselves to determine whether the program
is meeting the goals established for the home.
Chairman Pepper. We will adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow in this
room.
(Whereupon at 4 :30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned until 10 a.m. on
April 19, 1973.)
STREET CRIME IN AMERICA
(Corrections Approaches)
THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 1973
House of Representati\t:s,
Select Committee on Crime,
Washington, B.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 : 15 a.m., in room 311,
Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Claude Pepper (chairman)
presiding.
Present : Representatives Pepper, Mann, Wig^ns, and Winn.
Also present: Chris Nolde, chief counsel; Richard Lynch, deputy
chief counsel ; James McDonald, assistant counsel ; and Leroy Bedell,
hearings officer.
Chairman Pepper. The committee will conie to order, please.
Mr. Lynch will you proceed with the first witness.
Mr. Lynch. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. t^ .^, t
Mr. Chairman, the first witness today will be Judge Keith Leen-
houts. I am pleased to present him to you and to the committee.
Judge Leenhouts is executive director of Volunteers m Probation,
a division of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. He
holds a law degree from Wayne State University, and served as a
iudge with the municipal court in Royal Oak, Mich., from 1959 to
1969. It was under Judge Leenhout's leadership that the remarkable
volunteer program began within the State of Michigan. It has served
as a national model. At one time Judge Leenhouts employed over 500
volunteers within his court system.
His organization, Volunteers for Probation, operates now on a
budget of approximately $80,000, and Judge Leenhouts spends most ot
his time going from city to city within the country assisting other
courts and citizens groups in establishing probation volunteer
programs. . ., ^ ui 9
Judge Leenhouts, will you please take a seat at the witness table?
Chairman Pepper. Judge Leenhouts, we are very pleased to have
you here this morning. We know we will profit very greatly by your
advice and counsel.
STATEMENT OE KEITH J. LEENHOUTS, DIRECTOR, VOLUNTEERS
IN PROBATION, ROYAL OAK, MICH.
Mr. Leenhouts. You might like to know a little bit about the volun-
teer court movement. It was virtually nonexistent 8 years ago, vir-
tually zero volunteers were involved in the criminal justice system.
(907)
908
Today there are one-thjrd of a million volunteers involved in some
2,000 courts, jails, prisons, and juvenile institutions.
Mr. Chairman, you will be proud to know Florida was one of the
first States to go into this in a meaningful way on a statewide basis.
Chairman Pepper. I have met many of the ladies who are sort of
monitoring our courts down there. Is that the same program ?
Mr. Leenhouts. No; that is a little bit different. We are more in
the 1-to-l involvement with the offender and with professionals
like psychiatrists and psychologists as volunteers; also, giving serv-
ices directly to the offender.
Chairman Pepper. I am pleased to know that Florida is taking a
credible part in this program.
Mr. Leenhouts. Yes. That was 1967 or 1968, I spent quite a bit of
time in your State, helping them begin the first statewide movement
in that area.
The use of volunteers is very, very effective. We have research which
we can leave with your committee, which pretty well proves that the
volunteer and the professional, working side by side, are about three or
four times more effective than the professional alone. So I think that,
first of all, the volunteer represents a tremendous source of savings as
far as the repeat crime is concerned.
The volunteer court movement we fully anticipate will involve 1
million volunteers within the next 3 or 4 years. So now we would
think that one of the things we should be thinking more about is how
these 1-to-l volunteers, who now are involved and informed, can
become agents for a change as well in other areas within the criminal
justice system. This is one of the things to which I think we should
address ourselves more and more.
There are two programs that I think I would like to mention to you
very briefly, if I may. One is a canoe trip which is going on right now,
which involves four kids that have been taken out of juvenile institu-
tions. They are kids that we have given up on, said they were beyond
us, we had to put them away. So four of them, a positive youngster, a
delinquent-prone youngster, a photographer, and man by the name of
Fred Ress, a young 25-year-old, is taking these six people on a canoe
trip from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean over a 6-month
period. If they can prove the effectiveness of this — and we have every
reason to believe they can — then maybe what we can do is send kids
who have been in trouble on adventures like this, so they will come back
proud of what they have accomplished, rather than ashamed of where
they have been.
Chairman Pepper. Who is acompanying those youngsters?
Mr. Leenhouts. The man's name is Fred Ress. This is the Plymouth
Youth Center of Minneapolis. The idea is to demonstrate that it is
far more effective than putting kids in juvenile institutions.
A prior trip taken 2 years ago from Lake Superior to Hudson Bay
over 73 days with a similar group of youngsters from juvenile institu-
tions, and one or two positive youngsters who had never been in trou-
ble, has brought about tremendous results and has brought about this
6-month trip. This is the kind of thing I think this committee might be
very interested in. I think it is one of the most exciting juvenile court
programs I know of.
909
Fred Ress is totally a volunteer. Not only has he volunteered his
time, but it is costing $4,000 just to take supplies for this trip. He is
a very talented young man. He could possibly be singing for thousands
of dollars a year. He was a winner of a New York Metropolitan Opera
Company nationwide contest. Not only has he given up his singing ca-
reer, at least temporarily, but has also put his own money into this. It
seems to me this is the kind of person we should identify and help.
Chairman Pepper. Just he and the boys ?
Mr. Leenhouts. He and one photographer and the six kids, four
who have been in juvenile institutions, one who will probably go there
because of a very poor background, and one positive youngster, so
they can have this effect back and forth.
I think, basically, this is the type of thing Volunteers for Proba-
tion have been doing. I really think if we are going to try to sum-
marize in just a few seconds what we have done over the last years
it is that what we have really done is identify really the heroes in our
society and to give them the support and help and guidance and con-
sultation that they need to get the program started.
Sometimes these are judges; no money, began a volunteer program
out of a complete vacuum Tike we had in Royal Oak. Sometimes they
are probation officers that are just overwhelmed at the situation, and
know they need help, and we go in, and help them know how to screen,
and sustain, and supervise the volunteer. Sometimes they are ordinary
citizens, like a man in Bethlehem, Pa., an engineer in Bethlehem
Steel, who began a program which developed beautifully, well admin-
istered, became a model program for Pennsylvania. Now there are
50 or 60 programs in Pennsylvania using this basic model of Bethle-
hem, Pa.
These programs, of course, are not saving thousands ; they are saving
millions of dollars throughout the United States because they have
reduced recidivism by about a 4-to-l ratio. They also give the courts
tremendous resources so that the lower courts, adult misdemeanor
courts and juvenile courts, become very effective and prevent all kinds
of felonies.
I can give you statistics on this. In our courts in Royal Oak, ac-
tually the parole office handling felons out of Royal Oak was actually
closed years after we began using volunteers in the misdemeanor
court. That is how effective the volunteer is. He represents just a
tremendous savings in money and, in addition to that, of course, just
a tremendous saving in human life.
The other juvenile program I might mention very briefly to you
is a program called Partners in Denver. It begins something like
this. When a young juvenile goes on probation the probation officer
says, "How would you like to join a club called Partners?" And the
response, of course, is totally negative from this young 14-, 15-, 16-
year-old. He says, "I don't want to join any club you are part of."
The probation officer says, "Then that's too bad, I will cancel out the
airplane trip." The kid says, "What about the airplane trip ?" And he
says, "As a matter of fact, not only do you get to fly in the plane, you
^et to fly the plane if you join 'Partners'." He says, "Wliere do I
sign?" The probation officer says. Not so quick. If you join this
club, you will have to meet with the citizens for 3 hours a week and
910
commit no more crimes." He figures he can con his way out of that
later, so he joins the club and a few days later has gone for an air-
plane ride with volunteer pilots who volunteer their time and gas, and
they go up in the airplane ride with the volunteer and staff man
from "Partners." They come back to earth, at least geographically;
I am not sure they ever come down mentally, emotionally. Then they
go on a fishing trip to a trout hatchery, a guaranteed success experi-
ence. Then they spend a year with a 1-to-l volunteer; they are
together with them 3 hours every week and once every 3 or 4 months
a third of them take a rapping trip or camping trip, hundreds at a
time, because there are now about 450 volunteers active in this
program.
This is the kind of program, under the direction of a remarkable
young man by the name of Bob Moffat, that should be all over the
United States. The recidivism rate is virtually zero. How could it be
anything else ? It is amazingly effective.
Chairman Pepper. I can't refrain from saying that this week we
have had programs unfolding which would not only reduce crime,
but save a lot of money for the taxpayers of this country. Yet, all
these people that are bleeding hearts over crime, most of them are not
doing anything about this kind of a program. They want to talk
about something else.
We are very grateful this morning to have as many of the members
of the press as we have here, but this is all dull, you see, it is not spec-
tacular, it is not anything sensational. It ought to be sensational.
You are telling about how the application of what, in a general
sense, might be called love, the exhibition of care and concern for these
boys that have committed serious crimes, is saving these boys from fu-
ture crime and saving the taxpayer a lot of money. But here the "Wash-
ington Post will run bi^ articles nearly every day telling about crime
in the District and the like. If they would be telling people here in the
District what you are telling us now and calling for volunteers to do
the kind of work these volunteers do to save these boys, we would be
saving the taxpayers money and we would be reducing crime here in
the District. But I don't know how — it is just going to take a person-
to-person kind of a program, such as you have described, in order to
get this idea spread over the United States.
But you are talking of the finest kind of crime curbing and I just
hope we can bring to the Congress and the public's attention this pro-
gram and encourage its adoption by others.
Go ahead.
Mr. Leenhouts. Thank you very much, sir. I might say that just
last night, sitting up on an airplane all night long to get here from
San Francisco, I read, it must have been 50 articles, photostatic copies
of articles from newspapers in Florida which have talked about the
Florida program under O. J. Keller and Len Flynn and others that
you probably know, and these articles show to me that the press is
really starting to think this does make news.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Keller was here this week. We are very
proud of him in Florida. The legislature is, in general, giving him
support. So we are, by way of improving our system, very much under
his guidance and leadership in Florida. I hope public opinion more
and more is supporting that approach. Yet we just barely scratch the
911
surface in what we can do if we will follow the best thoughts there are
prevalent in this country today in this area.
Mr. Leenhouts. The simple truth of the matter is, up to this point
what has developed, the one-third of a million volunteers that have pre-
vented thousands and thousands of crimes, has been in spite of and
not because of the government.
That is 90 percent true. And what has developed has been people
that have just said it has got to be and they have done it. And people
like Guy Main, Fred Ress, $4,000 of his own money, 25-year-old man,
said it's just got to be. He is taking a canoe trip which is in one way a
trip in the past, the old fur traders, but in another way it is a trip
in the next century, a way to deal effectively with juvenile offenders.
Chairman Pepper. All over this country there are businessmen who
are still relatively young, who have been very successful in business,
and a great many of them are looking for something satisfying to
do. I know one day I was riding along in the golf cart with one of
my good friends in Miami, who had made a lot of money, and at that
time he was not in business at all, had sold his business.
Addressing me, he said :
You know, I wish there was something I could find to do. I don't need any
more money, I don't want to be on any more boards and the like, but I just don't
feel like I am doing anything, only playing golf three times a week and just
taking it easy.
And this was a fellow, a very big, fine, strong, wonderful man.
There are a lot of men like that all over the countr}\ He finally went
back into business to a limited degree, primarily to occupy himself.
There are lots of men like that all over this country that are good
sportsmen, like to go out in the woods and fish and the like, who would
be wonderful men to work with boys. They would respect these men.
And the men would get a satisfaction out of life that they are not
now getting.
So I don't know how you spread this philosophy among the men
who would like to do this kind of thing, but I think there are a lot of
potential members of this great fraternity that you are talking about
in the country.
Mr. Leenhouts. You are so right. On our staff today, in our office
right today, in Royal Oak, Mich., we have six full-time people work-
ing for us. Three are retirees who get what they can of their social
security. Our program in Royal Oak, in order to have 50,000 hours a
year oi rehabilitative service to kids, had to have 14,000 hours of
administrative nitty-gritties ; 14,000 hours of really fine administra-
tive work was given to us by seven full-time retirees who worked for
what they could receive under social security, half of them; the others
have received nothing at all.
This is a tremendous untapped resource. One of the things we have
said around the country is we ought to use one-to-one volunteers.
There is a third of a million now, so that has been pretty successful.
But the second thing we tried to say so much around the country is
the use of the retirees you are talking about now, and I would like to
see, if possible, some funds somehow to go about with this message of
the involvement of the retiree.
As we approach judges throughout the United States, I would say
as we approach 100 judges, and we talk about the voluteers, 15 percent
912
of them say, "It has got to be ; it is right; I will do it myself if I have
to crawl on my hands and knees. It Tias got to be and I will do it."
my hands and knees. It nas got
ent will say, "No w
to do with it." And 70 percent
And 15 percent will say, "No way, it is no good ; I won^ have anything
■ ■ ■ ■ " -" , m the middle, will say, "I would like
to do it, but I can't do it administratively."
We can train retirees all over the United States to go to their
judges with the basic concept and say, "Let's try it, and I will admin-
ister this for a year and at the end of the year we review it and see
where we go." That is one of the things we would like to do.
Chairman Pepper. You know. Judge, what you are saying reminds
me, in a way, of the Peace Corps. Here we are approving conscientious
and meaningful people to go into other countries and try to help
those people. The age of the members of the Peace Corps, I under-
stand, has increased in later years. So it shows that older people as
well as younger people are idealistic and are interested in being help-
ful to their fellow man. But suppose we could organize a Peace Corps
equivalent in the United States to work among the juvenile delinquents
of this country ? Look at what an enormous program that could be.
How could we do something like that ?
Mr. Leenhouts. This is another thought we had in mind. I know
you have given a lot of thought to this because these things just don't
come off the top of your head. We are right on the same wavelength.
It is amazing.
One of the things we are now trying to bring about is a national
college for the court corrections volunteer movement. This national
college would, among other things, train graduate high school stu-
dents and college students for credit, give them an idea of how they
can become more effective as professionals in this field, or as volun-
teers later in life. This is something that is now on the drawing board
and we are working at and, of course, like everything else we have ever
done it has to be done totally without money, apparently. So we are
going to have to put it together. This is something I think there is a
tremendous potential for.
Chairman Pepper. I don't know whether it should be done under
the aegis of the Government or whether it should be done by a pri-
vate organization. Have you any suggestions? How could we stimu-
late a larger participation, and should the Government have any part
in it?
Mr. Leenhouts. I am really not sure, except to know that our office
solely intends to it. And if we can do it with some funds we will do
it quicker ; and if we don't have funds we will do it the way we have
done everything else, we will demonstrate its value and pick up
support from here and there. It is just a degree of how it is going
to come about.
Mr. Lynch. Have you applied to any Federal agency for the
developmental funding for that national college for training volun-
teers?
Mr. Leenhouts. No, Mr. Lynch, we have not. Certainly we would
be amenable to the thought if there appeared to be any interest.
Mr. Lynch. Judge, as I recall, several years ago you did apply to
a Federal agency for a grant to enable you to take a year's leave of
absence from your duties as a judge in Royal Oak to travel around
913
the country to assist other courts and citizen groups in establishing
volunteer programs. Is that the case ?
Mr. Leenhouts. No; that is not correct, Mr. Lynch. We did get a
Federal grant to study the effectiveness of the Royal Oak program
in 1965. That did not go to the operational program but to study the
effectiveness of the same period, that research is in the packet which
we are giving to the committee, and really proved the effectiveness
of the volunteer to a tremendous degree.
The LEAA has contributed money for our national conferences.
We have an annual national conference, the first one with 500 people,
the second one with a thousand, and we expect around 1,500 to 2,000 in
Denver next October. This is where we will get the Bob Moffats and
Fred Resses all together so they know each other. This is the way we
open communication with people of similar circumstance and interests.
Chairman Pepper. This is the volunteer organization, all over the
country ?
Mr. Leenhouts. Yes.
Chairman Pepper. Are you the head of it ?
Mr. Leenhouts. Yes, sir. In 1959 we began to use volunteers. By
1965 we had 500 volunteers. In 1965 a Reader's Digest article came out
about us. In 1965 the Methodist Church gave us $24,000, no money for
salary, no staff, but to pay for travel and literature to go around the
United States. In 1969 a very wealthy man, who wishes to remain
anonymous, gave us sufficient funds so that we were able to operate
for 5 years. And so for the last 5 years, on the money that he has fur-
nished, this industrialist, we have gone around the country spreading
this idea.
During this period of time, the volunteer court movement has grown
from zero to about a third of a million in 2,000 courts.
Chairman Pepper. Have you applied to any foundation for funds?
Mr. Leenhouts. We have not, sir. We probably should. We are now
with the Xational Council on Crime and Delinquency and have merged
with them.
Chairman Pepper. You are working with them ?
Mr. Leenhouts. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch, You are, in fact, a division of the National Council on
Crime and Delinquency ; is that correct ?
Mr. Leenhouts. That is correct.
Mr. Lynch. I wonder if you could tell us what is the cost of training
volunteers ? "W^iat kind of training does a volunteer in probation need,
and how much does that cost ?
Mr. Leenhouts. This varies from court to court. Some courts will
have a longer training program than others ; some courts will have a
shorter orientation period and then concentrate more intensely on
continuing supervision of the volunteer. Generally speaking, I would
say most volunteers are trained somewhere between 6 and 8 hours, but
the continuing supervision and guidance of the volunteer and support
of the volunteer to the future is very important.
'V\niat the volunteer seems to crave is to have somebody he can say to,
"My kid said this, my kid said that, what in the heck do I do now?"
This is what a good volunteer program will administratively provide,
somebody that has expertise that can be with the volunteer and can
914
say, "Well, your kid said that, I think you ought to try this, and you
will come back and we will share some more." This is the role we use
with our 35 volunteer psychiatrist in Royal Oak. Many of them would
spend time consulting with those doing the consulting, so to speak,
working with the volunteer and supporting him.
So it does vary quite a bit from city to city. But most of the volun-
teer court programs I have observed are being done very well. They
are working very hard. For example, the city of Royal Oak, in 1959
one person, the judge, spent one-fourth of his time, 500 hours a year,
on the whole criminal court process. Five years later, 500 citizens, most
of them volunteers, were spending 50,000 hours on the same process.
So we are thinking very, very hard, and the results are very, very good.
But we try to express that this isn't love in the sky ; this isn't just
sort of a hope that love somehow or other will descend and work
miracles. This is a very hard-working process in which we work at
screening, we work hard at training, we work hard at orientation and
supervision, and so on.
We also bring supportive services. For example, in our court every
young person that appeared before our court, where there was a dif-
ference between IQ and achievement, we had a group of volunteer
optometrists that would test their eyes and in many cases they found
out they needed glasses, and we would get the Lion's Club to get them
glasses. We had psychiatrists handle group psychotherapy as volun-
teers, marriage counselors acting as volunteers. The whole gamut,
bringing it all together is what we have to do, and this is what we can
do when the volunteer starts inspiring the community.
Mr. Lynch. The costs, then, in this kind of a program are minimal ;
but if moneys were available, they could be used to obtain technical
assistance, evaluation, training, and things of that sort. Is that correct?
Mr. Leenhouts. Yes. I think that the real role of the Federal Gov-
ernment would be to spread the concept, to train people to give them
the feeling that this can be done, and I think in every community there
is a tremendous need, but also in every community there is a tremen-
dous resource. We have examples of people who have taken this need
and the resource and put it together and come out with the solution.
This, I think, is what we should be about, going around telling people
that this is what can be done in their community, that they have the
answer in their community. I think this should be our role.
Mr. Lynch. Has the Royal Oak program been evaluated ?
Mr. Leenhouts. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. What did that evaluation show ?
Mr. Leenhouts. Well, it showed that the recidivism was greatly re-
duced and it also showed in an attitude test that the attitudes in a
similar court that had minimal probation actually got worse in about
50 percent of the cases. It would have been better if they had never
been put on probation. And our court, with the volunteer and pro-
fessional workinc: together, the attitudes were greatly improved.
I have a one-sheet document here on it. We can send you a 40-page
study, if you would like.
Other research, such as Denver and Boulder, has also pretty well
shown, and I think conclusively shown, that when you have intensive
probation, which is possible oiily when the volunteer and the profes-
sional work side by side, that intensive probation is very, very effective.
[The study referred to was retained in the committee files.]
915
Mr. Lynch. Would you explain what you mean by "intensive pro-
bation," please ?
Mr. Leenhouts. Sometimes I think, Mr. Lynch, there really ought
to be two different words for "probation." One type of probation is
where a probation officer has maybe 200, 300, 100, some big number,
of probationer and they report once every 3 or 4 months m writing
or by telephone, and that is it. We call that probation.
Now, we also call probation the kind of thing we did in Koyal Oak,
where every offender had an intensive presentence study by retirees
and volunteer psychiatrists and psychologists, so at the end of 5 or 20
hours, we knew what he needed and then we supplied that need, either
the 1-to-l volunteer or volunteer psychiatrists individually, or group
psychotherapy, or marriage counseling, or Alcoholics Anonymous ; 18
different things. That is called probation.
It seems to me this would be something like somebody that comes
over, say, from India, and you take him and watch a sandlot baseball
game with some kids, 6 and 7 years of age, and say, "That's baseball."
The next day you take him to Yankee Stadium to see a professional
game, and you say, "That's baseball." He is likely to say, "Which is
baseball?"
In a sense, they both are, and, in a sense, professional probation,
where people report once every 6 months, if at all, in a sense that is
probation. But what I am talking about is this intensive probation
where people really care. Our volunteers, for example, used to come in
at 10 o'clock every Wednesday night, those who were having problems,
and we would be up there until 12 o'clock, 2 o'clock in the morning
sometimes, talking about kids and their problems.
This is probation. This other stuff we call probation, it is too bad
we don't have another name for it.
Mr. Lynch. Do volunteer programs work best when they work with
the formalized probation department?
Mr. Leenhouts. We are seeing them develop in different ways. I
think a lot depends upon who begins them. The program in Denver, the
"partners" program, is a separate program. Our program in Royal
Oak was always part of the probation department and part of the
court. I think both systems are effective if they are done right. The key
here is putting your heart in the right place and then just putting
a heck of a lot of sweat where your heart is. When you do those two
things, you have a combinatioii.
Mr. Lynch. Judge, you indicated you have in some stage of devel-
opment an idea or a proposal for a national college for probation
volunteers. What would that college teach? What would the cur-
riculum be ?
Mr. Leenhouts. I think there would be two types of people, pri-
marily, that we would be aiming for. One would be the graduate high
school student and the other the college student, giving them a course
for college credit in which they would have 3 or 4 weeks in the summer
so they would be trained to be effective as professionals when they get
into the criminal justice system as probation officers or in other capac-
ities; and second, we would deal with people like engineering stu-
dents so that in their free time and in their spare time they could
be very effective as volunteers and really feel good about themselves
916
and what they are doing, not only for the probationer but for them-
selves.
The other thing that I would see would be 1-week courses which
would be pretty intensive for judges, probation officers, JAYCEES,
Junior Leaguers, et cetera, to show them how they could be involved
in this movement in their area. I would think that perhaps 10 or 11
1-week seminars, and maybe 3 or 4 months of 3-week courses for the
college student, and I think that in a few years we could make a tre-
mendous difference.
Mr. Lynch. So you would be giving formalized training, if you
will, to people who were signing up to be volunteers; is that correct?
Mr. Leenhouts. This would be very intensive training for people
who would be volunteers in the future, or who seek to be volunteers
now ; for those who would be professionals in the future in this area,
and for those who are professionals now. These are the four types I
would think we would be aiming at.
Mr. Lynch. Wouldn't that be an appropriate area for Federal or
State financial assistance. It is one thing to ask a person to devote
time, it seems to me, and to ask them to undergo out-of-pocket expenses
for losing a week's employment or whatever to attend a college. Would
that be an appropriate area for subsidy for this kind of program to
pay for that kind of training ?
Mr. Leenhouts. I thmk it would, and I think this kind of thing is
what the Federal Government should be about. The training and en-
couragement or motivation and information of people who can really
make a tremendous difference.
Mr. Lynch. Judge, you have seen the volunteer programs, I know,
certainly since 1969, and maybe before that, all across the country. Is
there any question in your judgment that by and large those programs
are as effective, if not more effective, than the traditional kinds of pro-
bation programs ?
Mr. Leenhouts. There is no doubt they are more effective when
they are done right, and our big job now is to see it is done right. The
problem no longer is to sell the concept. In 1965, when we first began
to spread the idea, we had to convince people it would work and it was
right. I no longer do that. I spend most of my time now trying to see
it is done right. As a matter of fact, I go to some communities where I
don't think that they really have got the motivation and I tell them I
hope you don't start because you have to really have motivation, drive,
intelligence, and ability. You have to put the heart and the head to-
gether. You have to put together the inspiration, the information, the
science, and the spirit. These things have to come together. And when
they come together you are really effective.
Mr. Lynch. I understand your motive. I would like to know how ef-
fective you think you can be ; how large is your operation ; and how
many professionals do you have working with you ?
Mr. Leenhouts. In Royal Oak, in our office ?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
Mr. Leenhouts. We have six employees. We have three in the tradi-
tional sense, and three retirees that work for us.
Mr. Lynch. Are you the principal emissary, however? Do you per-
sonally review programs across the country ?
Mr. Leenhouts. I am the one who is on the road.
917
Mr. Lynch. And your total budget is $80,000 ; is that correct ?
Mr. Leenhouts. That is about right.
Mr. Lynch. If you had additional funding, would there be a role
to find people — that would be hard to do, I think — like you to review
programs and to give technical assistance, as it were, to other judges,
court systems, what have you ; could you employ such people ?
Mr. Leenhouts. People from around the United States that I know
right now ? I could put my hands on 15 of them today. That would be
a great job.
Mr. Lynch. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman,.
Chairman Pepper. Judge, have you made any application to, or
have you had any contact with, the Development and Delinquency
Prevention Administration, which I believe is in HEW ?
Mr. Leenhouts. No, sir.
Chairman Pepper. They are supposed to be working in the field
you are working in. I don't think they have very much money, so I
don't know just how much they are able to do. But I was wondering
if it might be desirable for you to contact them to see whether or
not they are in a position to give you any help ?
]Mr. Leenhouts. I think this is one of the things we should do. I
think one of the big problems is I will have whole months where I am
only in the office for 2 or 3 days, because I am traveling so much to
help courts get started and help cities get started with these programs,
and putting on a huge national conference once a year which involves
2,000 people or more. That is pretty much a full-time job for some-
body, too. I think we have just reached the point we have to have
more staff so we can begin to do more things.
Chairman Pepper. I wish you would give some thought to what
kind of legislation Congress might entertain which would, in effect,
support your program. I would like to relate that to the Peace Corps.
I think of it as comparable to the Peace Corps but on a domestic
level, and aimed primarily at delinquent youth or troubled youth. I
wish you would give some consideration to the kind of legislation that
might be introduced in the Congress, or might be recommended by
this committee, that would enable you to do a better and bigger job
than you are doing even now.
Mr. Leenhouts. Thank you. I will be glad to.
[The memorandum referred to was not received in time for
printing.]
Mr. Leenhouts. Let me say that one of the persons I haven't men-
tioned this morning is a man by the name of Eichard Simmons, in
Seattle, Wash., who has — hold on to your hat, you won't be able
to comprehend this, nobody can when they first hear it — matched
4,500 volunteers with prisoners, the most hopeless cases. They always
look for the ones who have been there the longest with no communi-
cation from the outside. The volunteers work with them on a 1-to-l
basis, as prisoners, as parolees, and ex-offenders, as lifelong friends.
I wish I could have the time to tell you story after story of the
marvelous things they have done. Dick Simmons' concept is for a
national college to train young college students to commit themselves
for 2 years. Peace Corps style, and this is the kind of thing Dick Sim-
mons and Bob Moffat of Denver's "partners" program, the airplanes,
and myself, the three of us are trying to work and bring about.
918
Chairman Pepper. "Would you work that up in a memorandum and
send it to me ?
Mr. Leenhouts. I would be delighted, sir.
Chairman Pepper. I ran into a program comparable to the one you
are describing down in Memphis, Tenn. Out from Memphis is an
institution where they incarcerate people. There is a company which
is interested in improving people and improving the conduct of people
and the like, motivating people, that was in charge of this program
they developed there.
I went down there and spoke at one of their graduating exercises.
They graduate prisoners who come through these courses. I learned
the business and professional men in Memphis worked with one of
the inmates out at the institution and talked over things with him and
counseled with him and encouraged him and helped him. Then when
he gets out, if he lives in that area, they also work with him, try to help
him after he has been out.
I remember one of the graduates of this school whose class was
publishing the local paper at the institution. He had been a man who
from the time he was a young man had been in prison. I think he was
in his forties, but somehow he had finally gotten the light and taken
on a new point of view, new attitude, and it now looks like that fellow
is going to go out and become a useful person in society.
Mr. Leenhouts. "We are not only pleased with that program at the
Shelby County Penal Farm started b;y^ Commissioner Mark Lux well,
but we are also proud because I believe that program began when
Mark Luxwell heard one of our presentations in 1964 or 1965. He came
to Royal Oak twice; we talked about it and that was the program
which evolved out of it. "We are not only pleased with it, but we are
proud of it.
Chairman Pepper. "Very good.
Mr. Winn?
Mr. "Winn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to congratulate you on the work that you are doing.
I am sorry I missed the first part of your testimony. I will pick it up
out of the record.
I, too, long felt that most of our so-called probation systems are
really a farce. Many of the young people that we have had before
this committee in the last 2 or 3 years talked about being on probation,
but I got the idea that they thought it was a joke. Some of them said so.
Some of them said they never did see their probation officer, thev
would check in once in awhile when they felt like it; and it didn't
seem to me like most of it was working in the sense that you say your
program is.
I find your program very intriguing and I wish you all of the luck
in the world.
Mr. Leenhouts. Thank you, sir. I would invite you, and anybody
that could, to come to our next national conference or send some of
your staff, because this is where you will see about 2,000 people that
are really involved in this all over the country. As Milton Rector, the
director of the National Council of Crime and Delinquency, said
one time : "I used to think I knew something about conferences, but
I never dreamed you could have the spirit you have here at our
conferences."
919
I hope maybe you could have some of your representatives come
out. I think you would meet some fabulous people doing some great
things.
Mr. Lynch. Judge Leenhouts has left a rather extensive folder for
the committee. I haven't had a chance to look at it, but I would like
to reserve the right to incorporate appropriate parts of that folder
into the record at a later time.
Chairman Pepper. Without objection, it will be incorporated.
[The material referred to will be found at the end of Mr. Leen-
houts' testimony.]
Chairman Pepper. Jud^e Leenhouts, who is the head of your pro-
gram in Florida, and particularly in the Miami area?
Mr. Leexhouts. The statewide director of the program is Mr. Keller
in the juvenile field ; a man by the name of Leonard Flynn in the adult
field. There are many programs, and in the Miami area they began
a program about a year ago, and they have a marvelous person
named Ruth Wedding, who was one of the great leaders in the whole
country. This program in Miami was begun by the Junior League out
of a complete vacuum. The court had no services at all in the misde-
meanor field, and the Junior League gave the money, volunteered,
and it is a marvelous example right there in Miami on how a private
organization, the Junior League, and the courts have worked together
to bring about probation services.
Chairman Pepper. I thank you for those names. Of course, we had
Mr. Keller here this week. We are very proud of his eminent work in
Florida. I am going to look up those people and try to get more help
down in Florida.
Mr. Leenhouts. I might add this : We do have in our files in our
office a list of about a thousand of my personal friends around the
country. They are all doing a fine job and I would be glad to share
this with the committee if that would be helpful.
Chairman Pepper. We wish you would.
Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming, Judge.
[The following material, previously mentioned, was submitted foi
the record by Mr. Leenhouts:]
[Excerpts from "Concerned Citizens and a City Criminal Court," June 1969, by
Project Misdemeanant Foundation, Inc., Royal Oak, Mich.]
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
In August of 1959, a 17-year-old boy stood before the judge of the Municipal
Court of the City of Royal Oak, Michigan (Population 90,000). He was charged
with a felony, robbery armed. The preliminary examination had just been con-
cluded. The boy was all alone, \\-ithout attorney, parents or friends. The Judge
asked him, "Where is your mother?" "She died when I was nine," was the reply.
"Where is your father?" The boy said "He left before her funeral was over. I
haven't seen him since." "Where have you been living?" The heartbreaking reply
was, "I lived with my grandmother for a while but she died. I then lived with an
aunt and uncle, but they were divorced and neither wanted me. I have just lived
here and there since."
A month or two later nine men sat around a table discussing his case. We could
do nothing for him. He was now before the higher courts awaiting trial and
provable sentencing. But how about the others who would follow. Were we
equally helpless?
The nine men were two Protestant ministers, a Catholic priest, a psychiatrist,
a psychologist, a former professional youth worker, two junior high school assist-
920
ant principals and the judge. All were close personal friends of the judge except
one. We decided to do something about the youthful offender if we could.
On April 15, 1960, we received the sanction of the Michigan Corrections Com-
mission to institute a new type of probation program. Our plan was simply this :
Each of the eight "Counselors" would give a maximum of five hours a month to
a maximum of five probationers each. They would meet with them voluntarily,
without financial remuneration. An assistant junior high school principal was
appointed the Chief Probation Officer. He agreed to work additional hours to
coordinate the program also without pay. We hoped to establish an inspirational
relationship of trust, confidence and admiration between the probationer and an
adult in the community who had both the zeal of the volunteer and the training,
education, and experience of the expert in a phase of counseling. Whatever else
might be said, at least we were not lacking in dedication, enthusiasm, and coun-
seling experience. Incidentally, this is perhaps one of our unique features. The
volunteer usually is an expert. We anticipated that the program would continue
as originally started, supplemented only by the addition of more counselors. How
wrong we were.
In June of 1960, about two months after our program got started, it became
apparent that the Chief Probation Officer was working many more hours than a
volunteer should. We have always felt that no volunteer should work more than
five hours a month. As the Chief Probation Officer, he saw each of the proba-
tioners once a month. Thus, each probationer had a minimum of two meetings a
month, one with his volunteer counselor and one with the Chief Probation Officer.
We talked to a businessman who agreed to make a $50,000 donation to our
Probation Department. He was our first financial contributor. Toward the end
of June we contacted two other businessmen who agreed to pay $25.00 a month
each until the end of the year. These were our first permanent contributors. The
program was now on a solid financial foundation, at least for six months. Thus,
the program that started out with no financial backing whatever now had its
first paid professional. The Chief Probation Officer was our first paid employee.
Toward the end of 1961, several more volunteer counselors were added and the
Chief Probation Officer's case load was getting extremely heavy. It was getting
to the point where he was becoming an administrator only. This we wished to
avoid. We decided that we must secure the services of a "staff assistant" who
would work about 25 hours a month also. Luckily, we were able to employ an
assistant principal at a junior high school who was one of the original eight. His
title was "Chief Counselor."
To effectuate this it was necessary to raise more money. Four of our biggest
businesses contributed $25.00 per month each. Thus we started the year 1961 with
two part-time employees (25 hours a month each), approximately 35 volunteer
coimselors and $100.00 a month. We were sure that we had reached our peak
and that the challenge would be met. Again we were badly mistaken.
In the final months of our first year (January to April, 1961) we began to
learn from experience that the experts were right. A probation department must
be well administered.
Very happily, in May of 1961, the City of Royal Oak gave us $2,200. This was an
unsolicited gift. No request had been made by us. How many times has the
legislative branch of the government given an unrequested gift to the judicial
branch? It was in this manner that the city started to partially finance the pro-
bation department. It now furnishes some 75% of our financial needs.
As we continued to grow in case load, the problems of administration became
more and more time-consuming. For example, notices of monthly meetings for-
merly were a matter of simply letting a few friends know that we were having
a get-together. Suddenly, it involved the mailing of 35 notices. Up to this point
most of the administration had been done by the judge, who, in early 1961,
found himself involved in some 15 to 20 hours per week administering a pro-
bation department in addition to the 40 hours or so required by the regular court
activities. We seriously considered the possibility of being more selective and
taking only the violators who presented the gravest need. While this sounds good
on paper, it doesn't work that way. We concluded that we could not turn our
backs on any one in real need of help.
As it often does, a perfect solution presented itself. A retired friend of the
judge volunteered his services. Formerly a business executive, he has fine sensi-
tivity to the needs of others and particularly to the needs of young probationers.
When first contacted he offered to give 15 hours a week to the program without
any monetary compensation. A few months later additional contributors were
921
found and this retired senior citizen started to work full time for us. Due to the
limitations of Soc-ial Security, he received only $100.00 per month or some OO^f
an hour. He spent nearly all of his time in the administration of the program. In
addition to his other duties, he contacted each volunteer counselor once a month
for their progress reiK)rts. He met at least once a week with the staff counselors.
He also sent out notices of the monthly meetings, wrote letters for the Chief Pro-
bation Officer and the Chief Counselors, prepared the probation orders, typed
bench warrants, contacted the psychiatrists and countless other tasks. He freed
the counselors from administrative details and dutie.s. Without him, we would
not have continued long after the first year. An assistant was later added to
help the over-worked administrator. Now several citizens assist in the admin-
istration of the program, giving us an administrator and five assistants at the
present time. All are retired senior citizens.
For the last four years several women in the community have been donating
secretarial and clerical services. Much of the letter writing and other miscel-
laneous typing is done by them.
We have also been assisted by several retired, senior citizens who perform
"doormen" duties for us.
As has been suggested by thie foregoing, our program grew and expanded as
dictated by the needs of the court and the needs of the probationer.
We noted, for example, that we badly needed a presentence investigation de-
partment to gather factual background information coupled with psychological
testings and psychiatric evaluations. This development followed our usual pat-
tern. We secured the service of one dedicated individual, a minister, with train-
ing in criminology, and (eventually) some 25 volunteer psychiatrists, 10 volun-
teer psychologists, two staff psychiatrists and five psychological and psychiatric
clinics to assist us. All but the staff psychiatrists, who, like the pre-sentence inves-
tigator are vastly underpaid and are, therefore, quasi-volunteers, receive no
monetary remuneration whatever.
We heard about group psychotherapy and like the idea. We approached some
busitnessmen who donated sufficient funds so we could hire a psychiatrist who
agreed to work at far less than the going rate. Both the contributors and the
psychiatrist were motivated by a desire to assist the court in the rehabilitation
of those probationers who could be assisted by group psychotherapy conducted
by a psychiatrist.
We knew that some defendants could be assisted by individual psychiatric
treatment. Gradually we secured the services of some 30 psychiatrists who vol-
untarily treat the defendant who cannot pay for the service but who has the
need and the desire to be so helped. Again a professional was needed to coordi-
nate this, so two associate staff psychiatrists were added to so do.
As noted elsewhere, additional professional counseling was needed both directly
with the probationer and to better supervise the volunteer. We now have eleven
such professional staff counselors who perform both functions. Thus, these four
aspects of the program followed the same pattern of development. In each
case (pre-sentence, administration, professional counseling and psychiatric coun-
seling) a dedicated professional who was willing to work for less than the going
rate became a quasi-volunteer. We then secured the services of many volunteers
to assist him. The under-i>aid, dedicated, warm, sincere professional and the
volunteer working side by side got the job done.
Other aspects of the program followed a different pattern. In the development
of the Alcoholic Anonymous, volunteer sponsors, employment counseling, non-
support enforcement, church-referral, optometrists, lawyers and doctor referral
programs, a volunteer or group of volunteers initiated and maintained the
program assisted by the administrator and his associates.
Thus the history can be summed up rather accurately in this manner. A need
would manifest itself. The court had no ability to supply that need. The court
woiild then ask the community to voluntarily supply sufficient money to hire
an extremely competent but underpaid, dedicated professional and many volun-
teers to work with him to solve the problem presented by the probationer, or the
court asked for volunteers alone to supply the needed service.
The community and its citizens have been magnificent. They have truly fulfilled
this Biblical quotation, "Ask, and it .shall be given you : seek and ye shall find ;
knock, and it shall be opened unto you". (Matthew 7 :7)
The historical development of this program has been thrilling and gratifying.
It is something akin to the experience of the death of a loved one. For every task
I
922
to be performed prior to and at the time of the funeral, ten hands stretch forth
to do that task. It is similar here. We are rarely disappointed.
It has been said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for men of
good will to do nothing. We are satisfied that the opposite is also true. All that is
necessary for good to prevail is for men and women of good will to do everything.
For the past six years we have seen them so do. The experience has been exciting
and memorable.
It would seem to us that for every need there is a person who can and will
supply that need on a voluntary or quasi-voluntary basis. There seems to be no
limit to what people of Judeo-Christian concern will do as volunteers, quasi-
volunteers or voluntary financial contributors.
The various aspects of the probation department are described in more detail
hereinafter. The foregoing is merely our attempt to give the reader the historical
development.
The Volunteer Sponsors
Our list of volunteer sponsors (we changed the name from volunteer counsel-
ors) continues to grow. We now have well over 100 volunteer sponsors. Although
we fundamentally rely on the staff counselors for the counseling, we have con-
tinued to select the volunteer sponsors with great care. They fall into one or both
of these categories : (1) Experts in a phase of counseling or (2) Well known by
the judge or other i)ersonnel of the probation department to have natural talent,
sincerity, and warmth of personality — inherently good counselors and friends.
Over 90% fall into both categories. They are attorneys, psychologists, psychia-
trists, ministers, priests, educators, and the like. In many cases there has been a
utilization of an existing employer-employee relationship or the creating of a
new employer-volunteer sponsor relationship. This has been very effective. These
men and women are selected with great care. They also receive orientation before
they are assigned a probationer.
Their case load has been reduced. Originally they met with a maximum of five
probationers. Now their case load is one probationer each.
The successful oi)eration of this phase of the program is entirely dependent
upon one factor ; namely, the establishment of an inspirational relationship of
trust and confidence between the probationer and an outstanding member of
the community who by education, training, experience, and background has the
ability to help the probationer change his inward attitude and moral concepts.
The fact that the volunteer sponsor is not paid at all for his time and is moti-
vated solely out of a warm sincere desire to assist the probationer is mast impor-
tant. The probationer in many eases realizes that, "this guy really is interested
in me and he really wants to help me".
Initially the meetings with the volunteer sponsors are predicated upon obedi-
ence out of mere duty. They must either report or go to jail. However, in most
cases this obedience based upon force is supplemented, and often totally sub-
stituted, by a feeling of respect based on admiration, gratitude and esteem. Thus,
the program works something like a good parent. After the punishment is over,
the volunteer sponsors seek to understand love, correct, rehabilitate, re-educate
and inspire. It is in this process that the deeper and sounder relationship is sub-
stituted for obedience based upon power and authority alone. This is one of the
most important phases of our program.
Originally, all our volunteers were experts in some phase of counseling. Be-
cause of the lack of professional supervision we could not, initially, use the un-
trained volunteer. Now. however, we use the untrained volunteer because we can
give him adequate supervision. However, many of our volunteers continue to be
experts in some phase of counseling.
This aspect of the program no longer constitutes the whole probation depart-
ment as it did originally, but it remains a most important part of the program.
Additional information on this most vital and important aspect of the program
is given in Exhibit E. "The Role of the Volunteer." The list of volunteers is set
forth in Exhibit 11 and gives an idea of the type of volunteers who are active in
this program. Case histories are found in Exhibit D.
Screening of the Volunteer Sponsors
For the most part, the volunteers have been screened by a long friendship with
the judge, a staff counselor or other personnel of the probation department. This
also includes employment screening such as the standards set by the Bar Associa-
tion which must be satisfied before one can become a lawyer. Those not in this
923
category who want to serve are requested to cooperate in a psychiatric-psycho-
logical screening process before they are accepted.
A chief counselor also conducts orientation courses for new volunteer sponsors
who wish to attend the same before assignment.
The Staff Counselors
The mainstream of our program flows through our professional counselors,
called staff counselors. They are the chief probation oflScer and the chief coun-
selors.
At least in the opinion of the writer, a most important development was the
successful consummation of our attempts to reduce tlie case-load of the staff
counselors. We did tliis by adding more chief counselors. We now have high school
counselors, psychologists, social workers, and a minister with special training
in marriage and family counseling. Their names appear later in this report.
Their case-load has now been reduced to about 18 each. We have an average ac-
tive case-load of about 550. Of this number, a few are on probation merely for
restitution, non-support, or for supervision in the negative sense only. Those sub-
ject to the weekly meetings of the AA program generally meet additionally with
the administrator only, and do not meet with the staff counselors. Others attend
group meetings.
Women probationers meet with the administrator and volunteers of the wom-
en's division only. A few probationers work in the evenings and meet with a
volunteer sponsor and the administrator only. This leaves about 200 who meet
with the staff counselors, or about 18 each. This has greatly increased the effec-
tiveness of the staff counselors, who do virtually no administrative work and de-
vote all their time to counseling. *
The greatest benefit from this change has been a closer liaison between the
volunteer sponsor and the staff counselor. This process is supplemented and as-
sisted through the efforts of an associate administrator by and through monthly
written reports to the department by the volunteers. Also, the chief counselors
now have more time per probationer for counseling.
The volunteer sponsor and the staff counselor often meet on a regular basis to
discuss their mutual interests. Our volunteer and staff psychologists and psy-
chiatrists attend these meetings as well.
The staff counselors work about 15 to 20 hours a month for us. They are paid
$900.00 a year.
Associate Staff Counselors
Another development was the creation of the position of associate staff coun-
selor. When the chief counselors have a probationer who needs additional coun-
seling rather than a volunteer to act as a friend, they can turn to their associate
staff counselor. These men are trained in counseling and give additional time to
the probationer whose needs for professional counseling go beyond the time that
the chief counselor can devote to him.
These men work about 5 to 7 hours a month. They work closely with their chief
counselor. They are completely unpaid.
Here the enthusiasm, dedication and warmth of the volunteer is blended with
the training, experience and talent of the expert in counseling in one inspira-
tional personality. It has been most effective.
The Professional and the Volunteer
Although this program started out simply as a volunteer program, we are con-
vinced that a program that combines the efforts of the volunteer and the profes-
sional is most effective. Based on our experience, we would be very reluctant to
have a probation department staffed only by volunteers. However, working to-
gether the professional and the volunteer supplement each other very well and
are most effective.
The Psychiatkists and Psychologists
Not unlike the rest of our program, the psychiatric and psychological services,
like Topsy, "just growed". We have always been most fortunate to be associated
from the beginning with men who are not only excellent practitioners but also
who are warm, sensitive, and dedicated individuals. There is no group to whom we
are more indebted. Of the original eight who instituted the program, one was a
psychologist and another a psychiatrist.
924
Initially, we used their talents to do follow-up therapy with individual proba-
tioners. After a period of time, we became convinced that their time could better
be utilized in the difl5cult area of pre-sentence investigations. By so doing, their
insights were available not only to the judge in sentencing but also to the entire
staff as we engaged in follow-up counseling. They also gave us a better method
of selecting specific services for probationers such as group psychotherapy.
For nearly three years we were able to give free psychiatric evaluations and
psychological testings in our more severe cases as part of the pre-sentence investi-
gations only through the dedication and generosity of eight psychiatrists and
seven psychologists. All practice privately and gave of their time without mone-
tary gain.
Now, and for the past two years, we have an arrangement with three state-
supported psychiatric out-patient clinics. They will give us a maximum of 13 free
evaluations each month. This is most ample for our needs. Their cooperation has
been most gratifying. Thus, we are now able to furnish all the evaluations that
we need through their efforts alone.
A later development has been most helpful. One or two psychiatrists in resi-
dence training and their supervisor donate five to nine hours a week to the pro-
gram to do evaluations. They routinely do the first evaluation. If more is needed,
the volunteer psychiatrists and psychologists in private practice give us addi-
tional information. If a further evaluation is necessary, referral to the state
supported clinics mentioned above is made. Thus, we can receive extremely
thorough evaluations when necessary and shorter evaluations where such will
suffice. These evaluations range from one hour to ten hours in length depending
upon the need.
The psychological testings continue to be handled by private practicing i>sychol-
ogists. However, we are most pleased that a nearby educational institution has
agreed to do some psychological testing for us. This, along with the private psy-
chologists, is ample for our needs.
We also have a staff psychiatrist who works about fifty hoiirs a month for us.
He engages in a group psychotherapy and individual psychiatric follow-up
therapy. The group program is described in more detail elsewhere. We have had
hundreds of probationers who have attended these sessions since its inception in
the fall of 1961. These groups meet weekly from September to June each year for
about 1% hours each week.
He also supervises the staff counselors and is the "star performer" at the
monthly staff meetings. He meets with the judge and the staff members several
times each month on an informal basis as well. This dedicated man typifies the
spirit of our paid staff. He is paid about $10.00 per hour. He is an excellent
practitioner who could make many times that amount by using his time in pri-
vate practices. He is a dedicated individual who fits well into the pattern of our
program of quasi-volunteers by reason of being grossly underpaid.
The reader will note that most of the above deals only with pre-sentence evalua-
tions. How about the probationer who needs treatment?
Until October of 1964. we could hope that such a probationer could retain
his own psychiatrist or that he would fit into the group psychotherapy program.
Only in a minority of cases could the staff psychiatrist work them into his sched-
ule for individual psychiatric treatment.
Then a gratifying thing happened. Thirty psychiatrists in private practice an-
swered our call for help. Also, four clinical psychologists volunteered to assist us.
They each agreed to accept one probationer in continuing therapy. Each agreed
to give between two and four hours a month to our program.
The psychiatrist, with the assistance of the probation department, establishes
the fee depending upon the financial status of the defendant. It might be as high
as the usual rate or as low as no charge whatsoever.
Now we can say that any probationer who has need of such assistance and the
desire to receive the same can get individual psychiatric counseling, therapy and
treatment on a long-term basis regardless of his ability or inability to pay for
the same. This aspect of the program is supervised by the staff psychiatrist with
administrative assistance.
We are not lacking for psychiatric services either in evaluations or in follow-
up therapy thanks to the generosity, warmth, and dedication of the psychiatrists
and psychologists. We can meet the need for group or individual psychiatric
treatment and counseling. Those who do not fit into the group and who are not
suflBciently motivated will receive counseling from the staff psychiatrists.
923
No group has given more. No profession has demonstrated more sincere con-
cern for our "prodigal sons". We are deeply indebted to them.
Further information on this part of the program is set forth in our letter of
October 17, 1964 which appears near the end of this report. (See Exhibit G)
Group Psychotherapy
One of the most interesting experiments thus far has boeji the gi-oup psycho-
therapy program headed by our staff psychiatrist. There are many probationers
who are now active in this program. The psychiatrists report that they are
pleased with tlie operation of the groups.
The idea behind this program is to allow complete freedom of expression to
a small group of (eight) probationers. Here they have an opportunity to give
full expression to their hostility, rejection, anger, frustration and other emotions.
The psychiatrist, who was trained in group techniques and who supervised
our first group in 1961, predicted that the groups would first spend virtually
all their time cursing and condemning the world in general and the court, proba-
tion officers, and persons in authority in particular. He was absolutely correct
and the first three or four weeks were used for that purpose. This has been our
general group experience.
The groups then progress beyond the condemning and cursing stage. They
settle down to a serious discussion of the personal problems of each member of
the group. They have also shown ability to take in new members. Several mem-
bers of these groups have expressed gratitude to the psychiatrist for being al-
lowed to bring up problems which were causing considerable anxiety. Others have
thanked the judge for being sent to group psychotherapy. Many have commented
most favorably on the program to other members of the staff. Several of those.
who have so expressed themselves, are probationers for whom we had scant
hope that they would be so effected.
The group program is not a necessity forced upon us due to lack of individual
counselors. Rather, group psychotherapy is a technique which, in many in-
stances, has been more successful than individual counseling. A form of group
counseling and an example of group dynamics is the highly successful Alcoholics
Anonymous program. It plays an important role in our program.
Another development was the organization of a husband-wife group which was
in operation in 1964 with good results.
In several years the hundreds of probationers subjected to the group program
have committed very few violations of probation. In view of the fact that many
of the most serious and potentially dangerous probationers have been subjected
to this program, we are gratified with the results.
Due to the institution of the program of individual psychiatric follow-up
by the 30 volunteers described elsewhere and the time expended thereon, no
group program was carried on in late 1964 and early 1965.
However, at the present time many groups are in operation directed by the
staff psychiatrists, volunteer psychiatrists and a volunteer psychologist. All are
progressing well. Other groups conducted by chief counselors are also doing
well.
Pre-Sentence Investigations
When we were 19 months old, we were able to initiate a pre-sentence investiga-
tion department for the more serious cases. Thus, since January 1, 1962, we have
enjoyed the advantages of these investigations. As has often been said, the pre-
sentence reports are to the judge what an X-ray is to the surgeon, It is indis-
pensable. It also has other advantages. Now the staff counselors and volunteer
si)onsors have a considerable amount of immediate information available to them
prior to their first meeting with the probationer. Our pre-sentence investigator
was a minister with experience in the field of criminology. He worked about
20 hours a week. Now this position is held by a retired and well-qualified man
who works full time.
In addition to pre-sentence evaluations, he will do some counseling. He also
assists the administrator on administrative details from time to time. As men-
tioned above, he relies heavily on the psychiatrists and psychologists with whom
he works very closely.
A i)re-sentence report might be as short as an hour interview with our pre-sen-
tence investigator plus about a half hour of verification of the facts and the
completion of the report. It might be as long as twenty hours and involve the
pre-sentence investigator, our psychiatrist in residency training, his supervisor,
9.5-158—73 — pt. 2 19
926
a psychiatric evaluation and psychological testing by an individual volunteer or a
clinic, or possibly both, and a report from our staff psychiatrists.
Thus, with the factual background on each defendant supplied by the investi-
gator and the psychiatric and psychological evaluations incorporated into his
report, we sentence with a degree of confidence that we have at least some con-
cept of the physical, mental and emotional maladjustment which manifested
itself in the commission of the crime before the court. Without the recommenda-
tions and evaluations of the investigator, the psychiatrists, and psychologists, the
judge would, at least in his own opinion, be totally unqualified to sit in judgment.
We try to heed the advice of Kipling, "Be slow to judge, for we know little of
what has been done and nothing of what has been resisted".
Pre-sentence investigations are so vital that we now feel any court starting
a probation department out of a complete vaciuuu absolutely without finances
or paid personnel as we did should first initiate a pre-sentence department. The
fact that we did not do this first is now our greatest criticism of our own his^
torical development.
A "reformed" alcoholic works as a volunteer with cases involving drinking.
The Work Detail
In February of 1965 a new program was instituted within the framework of
the probation department. It is called the "Work Detail" program. The basic
idea is to punish the wrong-doer in such a way that he does not have a criminal
record when the court experience is over. Traditionally courts can punish in just
two ways, by use of a fine or jail term. Each punishment, when utilized, im-
mediately gives the defendant a criminal record that can do him much harm in
future life. We have had defendants contact us 15 years later about a conviction
they committed as a teenager. Tears of good livinsr did not erase the blemish on
the record. They often cannot obtain jobs or promotions. arlvancenK'nt in the
armed forces or are fearful of the effect of the conviction when discovered by
their children.
We feel that punishment is important but the never-ending effect of punish-
ment can do more harm than the good it was intended to accomplish.
Thus, we instituted a program wherein worthy defendants without a criminal
record could petition the court for assignment to the work detail. To make the
program financially self-supporting, they pay $48.00 a month for the privilege
of working for the city 4 Saturdays a month. Thus, it costs the city nothing.
The sentencing is then adjourned for as long as two years. They report to the
personnel of the probation department during this entire time period, although the
number of months on the work crew generally is three months or less. If the
defendant has performed his work on the work crew satisfactorily, has abided
by the regulations of the probation department, avoided any further criminal
convictions, and fulfilled the spirit as well as the letter of the probation program
then upon recommendation of the probation department the case will eventually
be dismissed and the defendant will have no criminal record.
At the end of one year, these offenders paid over $10,000.00 into the city and
worked about 2.500 hours performing work that otherwise would not have been
done. They have cleaned parks, helped remove diseased trees, picked up litter,
repaired park tables, etc. Of the 163 so assi.gned. only one has committed a sec-
ond violation while imder this program, although it has been necessary to sen-
tence two others who did not fully cooperate with the program. Two others
received additional work assignments for failure to work with due diligence.
Additional information is available in Exhibit F of this report.
Employment Counseling
At first a retired citizen, formerly with the Michigan Employment Securities
Commission, directed our own employment counseling service. He met with
probationers whenever requested. He assisted in helping probationers discover
their talents by arranging for aptitude tests. He also gave them general advice
about how to get a job. In some cases he knew an employer who had a definite
need which a probationer could fill. In these cases he often arranged an actual
employment situation. He was one of many retired citizens who are active in our
program. He worked closely with the Michigan Employment Securities
Commission.
927
Now tbe administrator assists probationers who need jobs. He is assisted by
all of tbe other staff members and the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation.
Restitution and Non-Support Cases
Another retired senior citizen gives us about two days a week. Some of his
time is dedicated to the enforcement of non-support orders, where men refuse
and neglect to support their wives and children. They are required to pay a cer-
tain sum each week. Non-payment of the order will result in i)unishment for vio-
lation of probation. In many cases, wives and children are being supported for
the first time in several years by their husbands and fathers.
He also administers the payment of restitution in cases where the com-
plaining party has suffered financial loss because of the conduct of the proba-
tioner. Again, nonpayment of the restitution order will result in punishment for
violation of probation. The administrator also assists in this phase of the
program.
Women's Division
In the fall of 1963, it seemed advantageous to add a women's division. A re-
tired school teacher and counselor volunteered her services. She administered this
division. Assisting her were some ten women in the community. Like the other
volunteer sponsors, they are school teachers, housewives with social work or
psychological training and experience. TWCA personnel and tlie like.
In 1964. two housewives with special training in psychology and sociology
replaced the school teacher upon her retirement from the program. They now
administer the program and act as volunteer counselors as well.
These dedicated women have done an excellent job for us. They also make
referrals to and use the facilities of the Probation Department.
Alcoholics Anonymous
Our court operates its own chapter of AA. It is supervised by several success-
ful members of A.A. Some of the sponsors were originally referred to the pro-
gram by the court. The success ratio is roughly equivalent to the general success
ratio of A.A. Those who have completed about fifteen months of sobriety are
given their probation discharge or certificate of appreciation. We are tremen-
dously indebted to A.A. They owe us nothing. We owe them much. It meets
weekly for 1% hours. We feel that it is totally unrealistic for any lower court
to operate without the services of an A.A. Chapter. For farther information,
see Exhibit H.
The Role of the Prosecutor and Police
We are deeply indebted to the excellent law enforcement officials of our city
and county, the Royal Oak Police Department, the City Attorney and the Office
of the Prosecuting Attorney. They have a sincere interest in rehabilitation. With-
out their assistance and cooperation this program could not have develoi)ed
as it has.
Chart of Services and General Information
An operational chart of services is in the index of this report. (Exhibit C).
In addition to these services, we arrange apprentice training, employment op-
portunities, re-enrollment in high school, and enrollment in adult education
whenever possible. There is also some additional information on specific subjects
in the Exhibits.
Financing
Althouirh it is impossible to ascertain the total number of hours dedicated to
our program each month, a reasonably accurate estimate would be about 1000
hours a month, or some 12,000 hours a year. The total cost of the program for
1968 was about $23,000. Of this total, approximately $6,000 was donated by
businesses and businessmen in the community. The rest was provided out of city
funds. We conservatively estimate that the total services furnished by the proba-
tion department, if purchased at the going rate, would cost at least $300,000.
Spiritual Rehabilitation Program
We also have a spiritual rehabilitation program which was initiated when we
were 15 months old. About 90 churches in our immediate area responded to our
928
invitation to discuss the utilization of the power of the church in tlie field of
probation. The program works something like this. If and when a probationer
indicates a desire to have a church home, and we attempt to stimulate such a
desire whenever possible, we then ascertain his natural church home, consult
our list for the name of the clergy or layman who represents that particular
church and contact him. After a home visit, the clergy or layman will take the
probationer to church, thus insuring a warm welcome. It is our thought that
many probationers have a subconscious and sadistic desire to be rejected by the
church. If they go to a church and get less than a warm and enthusiastic welcome,
this subconscious desire will be fulfilled. For this type of probationer we hope
to have a real surprise in the form of a warm welcome. Although we do not have
a lot i>f referrals, those which are made have been effective. At this date,
approximately 25 probationers are attending church with a degree of regularity
for the first time. Some of these, at the suggestion of our personnel, got married
in a church. In some of these cases a church home was established.
ANNUAL SOCIAL AFFAIR
We have one social affair each year for the wives and husbands of the con-
tributors, the paid staff members, those assisting on special aspects of the program
and the volunteer sponsors. Altogether some 500 citizens are involved.
National Institute of Mental Health Grant
In April, 1965, we received a four-year grant from the National Institute of
Mental Health in the amount of $120,000. The reader's attention is referred to
Exhibit J in the Index.
Statistics
See statistics in the supplement on page 51 of this report.
Impor-tance of Probation
The importance of probation in municipal courts and other lower courts is
indeed staggering. Professional probation officers estimate that some 75% to
95% of those persons eventually committing the most serious crimes called
felonies have first committed a misdemeanor (less serious crime) and have
appeared before a municipal or other lower court judge at least once prior to
committing the felony. A great majority of these felons have appeared several
times before a municipal court or other lower courts before committing that
serious crime. Thus, the vast majority of these persons have, prior to the com-
mission of a felony, come into contact with a mimicipal court or other lower
court. If the lower court has not at least attempted to embark upon an inspira-
tional probation program, when the felony is eventually committed there have
been two failures and not merely one. One is the failure of the defendant himself.
The other is the failure of the court to do all it can to inspire, re-educate and
rehabilitate the defendant. If one is to apply the principle of the Parable of the
Talents, there is no doubt that the court's failure is the least excusable. Certainly
the court has the superior educational, academic and cultural background to meet
the challenge with which it is faced — infinitely superior to the resources of the
youngster who is described at the beginning of this report and who typifies so
many of our offenders.
Unfortunately, in spite of this challenge, less than 5% of the lower courts in
the nation have any probation program whatever. Because many of the probation
programs at this level are overcrowded and understaffed, perhaps only a fi-action
of the 5% engage in any typ e of inspirational process. For example, one probation
department at a lower court level, with which we are familiar, has over 600
prolia tinners for each probation oflScer. For the most part the probationers merely
report in writing and scarcely know their probation oflScers. In addition many are
forced to pay a montblv fee for probation. This program attempts to correct
this situation. (See Exhibit K, "The Methodist Project")
How Effective Are We?
How effective is the program of probation? The answer to this question must
be divided into two parts. From a technical or legal point of view, we are about
94% effective in Royal Oak. This means that about 6% of the probationers have
been guilty of a crime in Royal Oak or have left the state without permission
929
while under supervision. It is interesting to uole that the great majority of these
violations of probation have occurred within 45 days after the probationary term
has begun. This would indicate that most violations occur before the probation
program has been given a true chance to operate.
However, as noted above, this program is an attempt to truly change the
inward attitude of the probationer. How effective are we in this area? This is the
second part of the question. The answer to this question is most difficult. In fact,
the full and final answer can never be given. Our thought is that if we can truly
affect the attitudes and behavior patterns of 20%, we will be highly successful.
We will be completely satisfied if we can so affect 10% of those under super-
vision. It we can assist just one person a year in this regard, we will feel the
program is worth the effort. It is our thought that some 10% to 15% of the
probationers are so deeply affected by the program that their inward attitudes
and moral concepts are changed. In view of the fact that these attitudes have
been created over a period of 17 years or more and we have but two years to
attempt to change them, we are reasonably gratified by the results thus far.
Thus, we feel we have truly changed hundreds of probationers to date.
We should add that in some cases probation is utilized simply to supei-vise the
probationer. These are the probationers for whom we have little hope of
changing their attitudes. Most of these probationers are older men or women
who are on probation simply as a deterrent to further crime. However, our main
effort is directed at those whose attitudes we feel can be changed (see page 45
for a far better evaluation of effectiveness).
A PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT
It is our feeling that the criminal presents a problem that cannot be solved
simply by the tax dollar. In this age of materialism, we all rely too much on the
wallet to solve our problems. This is true of us individually, and collectively.
Collectively we scream for more tax dollars 'as a solution to all problems. How-
ever, it is apparent that many of our problems cannot be solved by money. A
terminal case of leukemia in a little child, and the problems it creates, cannot be
solved by a fat wallet. Those faced with such a problem must reach into tlieir
spiritual resources for the answer. We feel that the same is true with the problem
of the criminal in our society. We cannot merely spend more money in taxes on
him. We must, instead, reach into our spiritual resources and give of ourselves
freely, warmly, and without thought of monetary gain. This the city of Royal Oak
is doing. We humbly submit that the city so doing has the best chance of succeed-
ing in the often difficult, often painful, yet infinitely rewarding task of the-
inspiration, rehabilitation, and re-education of the criminal.
A SPIRITtrAL PEOCESS
In conclusion, we feel that probation is a spiritual process. We believe that
the volunteer sponsors are examples of the Judeo-Christian concept of going
the second mile. They are fulfilling the principles of the Parable of the Last
Judgment in that they are visiting him that is in prison, taking in him that is
a stranger and ministering imto those that have need. They are also fulfilling
the Commandment that he who would receive shall give and that he that would
be great among you shall be the servant. They are fulfilling the obligations of
the Great Commandment in a loving concern for their fellow-man.
This is essentially a process of redemption within the concept of the great
Judeo-Christian tradition. Even as this tradition is primarily concerned with
the redemption of mankind, so probation is concerned with the redemption of
that segment of mankind which has engaged in criminal conduct. Even the method
Is similar. The City of Royal Oak is wrapping up its message of concern and
love for its "prodigal sons" in the inspirational personalities of its volunteer
sponsors, chief counselors. Chief Probation Officer and other members of the
staff. Does not the use of an inspirational personality follow our religious and
spiritual tradition?
We feel that, in.nsmuch as this is essentially a .spiritual program, our success-
is dependent upon the ability of our personnel to comprehend and fulfill the spirit
of the Judeo-Chrisitian ideas and traditions.
930
Exhibit D
Illustrative Case Summaries
case summary — 1
As we began to prepare this report, we requested case histories from some
of our volunteer sponsors. One request was sent to a volunteer who was as-
signed a youngster who was the most potentially dangerous boy we have worked
with in five years. Small of stature, he was most aggressive and belligerent. He
was first arrested carrying a knife.
We have often heard the expression, "An accident looking for a place to hap-
pen." This is a good description of a careless person. This young man was a
malicious and dangerous person. He was, "a felon looking for a place to happen."
What the letter does not state is that before he was assigned to a volunteer
we tried everything. Professional counseling, psychiatric counseling, employ-
ment counseling and jail all failed. (You will note that the defendant himself
attributes his rehabilitation in part to the lessons imparted to him as a result
of the jail term. This may be so but he gave no indication of this result when
he was first released from jail. We think this benefit did not occur until the
influence of the volunteer gave him the eyes to see with and the heart to compre-
hend. )
Everything else having failed we decided to assign this youngster to a
volunteer. The volunteer was carefully selected. He is a person who can talk
the language of the probationer. His morality is of the two-fisted variety. In
spite of this, the assignment to the volunteer was made without much expecta-
tion but as a desperation measure. All else had failed so we decided to try it.
The volunteer was warned that he would probably fail. It was the best thing
we ever did.
Although the volunteer tends to underestimate his contribution to the re-
habilitation of the probationer, we believe that it should be printed exactly as
it was received. Only the names have been changed and the words in parentheses
added. ( See page 30)
Although this youngster is not perfect and still has his problems, we are
satisfied that he is no longer "a felony looking for a place to happen." There is no
story that we are prouder of than this one. ( Story on page 30)
CASE SUMMARY — 2
The defendant i^^ this case was arrested for reckless driving. The pre-sentence
investigation revealed that he had had a fight with his girl friend and, in a fit
of anger, drove at a fast rate of speed down a residential street. Among other
things, the sentence included a two year probationary term.
The defendant and his girl friend were married shortly thereafter. Within
the first year a baby was born. The defendant was a rather inadequate person who
had not even graduated from high school. In addition to his other problems,
neither parent approved of the marriage.
The chief probation officer referred him to a volunteer psychiatrist for an
evaluation. He reported that the boy was a character disorder. Although he was
not emotionally disturbed, he was lacking in impulse control. The psychiatrist
explained that the most effective form of treatment would be to insert into his
life an inspirational personality who would show him that there was a better
way to live. He further explained to us that such an individual could, by example,
so impress the defendant with his concern and affection that the defendant
eventually would not want to "let him down." "After a while," the psychiatrist
said, "we hope that this desire not to let down his friend will be transferred
to a desire not to let himself down." Thus, if we succeeded, rather than an
impulse giving rise to an instantaneous reaction regardless of consequences, it
would be tempered by a desire not to let his friend down and eventually by the
thought that he would not want to go contrary to his own standards. It is by this
method that we often seek to go from lack of impulse control to impulse control.
It is a big step to go fr( i.i lack -^f imimlse t'.iutrol to a point whore oro thinks
before he acts but it can sometimes be done.
In this case the defendant was assigned to a volunteer sponsor who is a min-
ister and an expert in marriage counseling. He spent many hoitrs with this boy
and his new wife. They both remarked later that without this concerned coun-
Beling the marriage never would have lasted.
931
We helped the defendant to secure a job. The chief probation oflBcer talked
with both parents and good relations were re-established at least with the parents
of the wife.
After two years of rather intensive probation, the youngster was discharged
from probation.
Shortly thereafter the defendant came in to see us. He reported that a terrible
thing had happened. "My father has just made improper sexual advances toward
my wife," he said. He asked for our help in handling this problem.
Through the city attorney, the father was contacted and sternly advised
that any repetition of this conduct would result in a complaint and warrant
being issued for his arrest. There has been no trouble since.
We think that this is probation at its best. A youngster who was so lacking
in impulse control that, as a result of a minor fight with a girl friend, he drove
at a high rate of speed down a residential street, two years later matured into a
youngster that in a situation of great stress and strain had sufficient impulse
control to seek out the authorities and ask them to handle the situation legally
and properly.
It, of course, can never be proven one way or the other. However, we feel
reasonably satisfied that the youngster might well have committed a most seri-
ous act of violence had it not been for the hours that the probation department
and particularly the volunteer sponsor spent with him.
This young man continues to see us now and then although his probation has
long since expired. He has a fine job, home, wife, and three children. He is a
real credit to the community. The substitution of mature judgment for lack
of impulse control is reflected in everything he does as a father, husband, em-
ployee, and citizen. He gives all of the credit to his volunteer sponsor and the
probation department.
CASE SUMMARY 3
This young man, age 22 years, started on the probation program one year ago
with a long history of traffic violations, including two revocations. Parents were
sincerely concerned about him but were completely unable to control or guide
this, their only son. His charge was DUIL and resisting arrest. This was fol-
lowed by an attempt to run out of the station and a battle with the arresting
officers.
Drinking and running around with the "wrong crowd" had been his down-fall
for several years. Cars and racing on public highways and "living it up" with
the "boys" was his idea of getting on in this world.
Not having finished high school (10th grade only), jobs were a problem and
he had real difficulty holding them mainly due to his "I don't give a damn"
attitude. If ever a young man seemed bent upon squandering his life and his
talent, Edward (fictitious), was just such a man.
At his chief counselor's request, Edward brought in a large sample of his art
work for discussion at our second meeting. Of this work he was extremely proud
and the counselor, being very much impressed, phoned one of our volunteers, a
Commercial Artist, who dropped everything and immediately came over to the
Probation Office to see the boy and evaluate his work (car design). He was so
impressed that arrangements were made then and there for Edward to start on
an apprenticeship with one of the largest commercial art studios in the country.
It is the same company the volunteer works for. Edward and the volunteer often
work together. Edward seeks and follows his volunteer's advice professionally
and also socially.
The boy has been moving through his apprenticeship for ten months now. His
work and his mental attitude are vastly improved. He works 12 to 14 hours daily
and six days each week "to learn the business" and "make something of myself."
"My parents are proud of me now and our whole relationship is much better."
"I have no time for bumming around with the fellas." Of late, these are typical
remarks from the probationer to both the counselor and the sponsor. He aptly
expresses gratitude for the help he has received from his volunteer and the studio.
His willingness to work hard and long hours concretely supports such expressions.
Parental gratitude is exceeded only by the frequency of expression.
He was completely changed. We are very proud of him.
CASE SUMMART — 4
Another letter from a volunteer sponsor reported this case.
John Smith (fictitious) was assigned to our attention approximately June,
1061. He had been found guilty of malicious injury to personal property and
932
served several days in jail and was placed on two years probation. His record
indicated other minor police problems. John lived with his mother and younger
sister in an upper apartment in another city. His father had divorced his mother
approximately 11 years before, and he was quite confused and wandered as he
saw fit.
This boy had graduated from high school and was working at a grocery store
as a stock boy and keeping company with an ex-prisoner of one of our state
institutions. Our first contact with this boy invited him to our Central Office
Building for a luncheon appointment. At first he offered excuses to avoid our
meeting saying his driver's license had been taken away and he had no way of
getting there, but we arranged transportation. We took him to the Executive
Dining Room. He had real long hair and was kind of "hoody" appearing, and
made several remarks during lunch about the "rah rah" boys in the dining room.
We tried to keep him interested in what we might be able to accomplish if we
worked together.
For the first several months, we had lunch on various occasions and he visited
our home. After the first month and a half, we noticed a definite change in the
boy's conversation, and what he used to think of as sissyish, he now thought
good manners. He got a brush haircut similar to the writer, and we started to
notice many of his mannerisms imitating mine.
About this time, we arranged to have him go to the Social Security Depart-
ment and take an IQ test which indicated mechanical aptitude. Our next step was
to get a hold of the Tool Association of Metropolitan Detroit, and working with
them we were able to obtain apprenticeship for his undertaking. The problem
was then how he could get to and from the job and school. We arranged to meet
with the Detroit Traffic Bureau, and were successful in obtaining a renewal of
his driver's license to permit him limited driving to and from work and school.
About six months later his license was renewed.
Approximately one and a half years after starting the apprentice course, I re-
ceived a phone call from John, and he said he had something important to discuss
with me. and he hoped I would not laugh. He indicated that he had an inferiority
feeling around girls because of his big nose. We had previously noted that he did
not mix too well around girls, but had never noticed that his nose was out of pro-
portion. He seemed quite concerned about this as we made arrangements with the
head plastic surgeon at the Ford Hospital for him to come in for an appointment.
After discussing this with the doctor, John said he wished to go through with
having his nose changed. An operation was performed changing the appearance of
the nose. After recuperating, it was noticed that he had a girl friend, and the boy
began to blossom into a fine citizen.
This August John Smith graduates from a 4 year apprenticeship program as a
Journeyman Diemaker. and is earning approximately $4.00 an hour, has a fine
car, and inspires his mother and younger sister. He plans to enroll in Henry Ford
Community College in September, unless the draft changes these plans. He con-
fides in us in most major decisions, including counseling him on the possibility of
getting married to a nice girl he is presently courting. This boy is certainly a
reflection of what has been accomplished by the Probation Department of Royal
Oak. '
Yours very truly,
CASE SUMMARY — 5
Mr. F. is a 35-year-old father of several children. He was put on two years' pro-
bation in 1962 for "driving under the influence of liquor". At the time of proba-
tion he seemed very honest and realistic about his faults. He seemed to have a
sincere desire to find a solution to his problems and pledged full cooperation. He
admitted being an alcoholic. He had no steady work, having moved from one job
to another, probably because of his drinking and job dissatisfaction. He had
accumulated many debts and had lost his driver's license because of previous
drinking and driving violations. His oldest son (9 years) was starting to have
serious behavior problems in school and in the neighborhood.
During the term of his probation Mr. F. was very cooperative. He had gone to
A.A. sporadically in the past. He now became regular in attendance. He was
prompt in attendance for his probation appointments. The probation department
arranged for a consultation between Mr. F. and an attorney in hopes that this
might help his financial involvements. The probation department urged Mr. F.
to cooperate with the schools in regard to referring his son for psychological or
psychiatric help. As a result the youngster is being seen by the Child Guidance
933
Clinic. Mr. F, was referred to two or tliree jobs by the probation department.
These, however, did not prove to be permanent.
During this time (period of probation) Mr. F. did have relapses and towards
the end of his probation period he was seen by our psychiatrist for an evaluation
and recommendation. As a result he was recommended for individual psy-
chotherapy with one of our volunteer psychiatrists.
It has been a year since Mr. F. has been discharged from probation, but he is
still receiving the benefits of the program in that he is still seeing the volunteer
psychiatrist on a regular basis. The most recent report from the psychiatrist was
quite optimistic, — in part as follows : "His drinking is less frequent and destruc-
tive and his self-esteem is beginning to rise. I expect him to start paying for his
own treatments soon so that I can take another probationer candidate without
fee".
I do not feel that the problems of this young man have been completely solved.
In fact I doubt that his problem will ever be completely resolved. I am convinced,
however, that because of the probation program he has discovered that there are
people who are definitely interested in helping him rather than in punishing him ;
he has been introduced to procedures which he can follow to help himself; and
most important. I think his relationship with his family has been improved and
strengthened and as a result his youngsters perhaps will be less scarred emotion-
ally by the behavior of the father,
CASE SUMMARY — 6
The next story is one of a failure. Anyone who commits a crime while on proba-
tion will always be listed as a technical failure in any statistical study. When he
was first put on probation we tried jail, a volunteer sponsor, and the professional
counseling of a staff counselor. We did not get anywhere. We then referred him
to a psychiatrist. Because of his financial status, we insisted he pay for his treat-
ments. (This is quite rare but we thought it was justified in this case). He saw
the psychiatrist irregularly and without any improvement. We could not of course
force these meetings. He then committed a second crime while on probation. He
pleaded nut guilty and while awaiting trial on this felony charge he suddenly
appeared to "see the light", through the now-regularly-attended meetings with the
psychiatrist. Such a change was evident that he was allowed by the higher court
to plead guilty to a lesser (misdemeanor) charge and received a short jail term.
When he got out he started seeing the psychiatrist eagerly. Now several months
later his psychiatrist says this :
'•Joe is an IS-year-old, white male, first seen on July 28, 1964. At that time,
he was ou probation for reckless driving at a local drive-in. He had become
involved in an altercation with the manager, and Joe had threatened him. In
addition, there were many othefr instances of Joe's losing his temper with mem-
bers of his family and, in general, of showing immaturity and poor impulse
control. A previous psychiatric evaluation had diagnosed Joe as a passive-aggres-
sive character disorder -^ith poor impulse control and many features of an early
soeio-pathic personality. This usually would suggest a relatively poor prognosis.
In December of 1964, he was arrested because he was in company with another
young man who was passing bad checks. While Joe was not directly involved
in the writing of the checks, he did go along in the spending, knowing that the
checks had been forged. Since that time, to the best of my knowledge, there have
been no other difficulties with the law."
"Joe has been seen on the average of once a month because of his erratic
attendance. This has tended to improve as time has gone on. At first, he found
it extremely difficult to verbalize but gradually became more comfortable and
was able to talk more easily. Generally, he has worked as a laborer, and he most
recently has been employed in construction work doing masonry work. He does
appear to have settled down a good deal and has hopes of getting a job at Chrys-
Ip'-. He i'^ recognizing his problem of impulse control in terms of his temper and
hn< related recent inridents where he said he previously would have "blown up"
but now did not. He was proud that this was so. He is a drop-out from school,
having gone only to the 9th grade. He seemingly lost interest in scliool and then
just refused to work at it. While he has toyed with the idea of going back to
school at night, he has not done anything about this. One aggravating circum-
stance was a girl friend. She was very possessive and very demanding and. as a
result, kept Joe upset a good deal of the time. He was unable to recognize what
934
was going on until very recently. Now he has a new girl friend with whom he is
getting along much better."
"Assessing Joe's progress, at this point, one can be cautiously optimistic. Con-
sidering the relatively poor prognosis it would appear that, thus far. the total
program has asserted a positive influence upon Joe and that, hopefully, he will
learn to control his impulses to the point where he can be a law-abiding, useful
citizen."
Sincerely yours,"
As suggested above, it is too early to say that "Joe" will succeed in life. This
story is not a complete one. But one thing is evident to the psychiatrist and to the
staff counselor — he appears to be completely changed. Formerly aggressive and
hostile, he now is relaxed, friendly, grateful. The staff counselor says, "A great
change in attitude". The probationer says, "I went to the psychiatrist before
because I felt I had to. Now I need it and it's helping. I am getting better control
of myself and have more feeling for others".
The counselor concludes our story, "Although he is not out of the woods yet
and still could get in more trouble he has come a long way. If this program helps
keep him out of prison and if he does, as it now appears, become a contributing
citizen, the program has paid for itself for years to come".
This case illustrates how a psychiatrist can work with a rather unwilling pro-
bationor and gradually give him the desire to want to help himself through psy-
chiatric counseling.
It is very encouraging. It reminds us of another probationer who was abso-
lutely the most belligerent, hostile and aggressive probationer we ever had. He
was forced to attend group psychotherapy as part of probation that also included
punishment. He was discharged "without improvement". We did not think we had
accomplished a thing although he was a technical success inasmuch as he com-
mitted no second crime while on probation. A few months later he came in to see
us on a minor charge. We could not believe our ears when he said, "There is
something wrong with me. I need help. Could you send me to a psychiatrist?" He
is now with one of our volunteer psychiatrists and appears to be progressing very
well. His attitude has changed a lot and we think he will be a useful citizen.
CASE SUMMARY — 7
The offender in this case pleaded guilty to indecent conduct in a public place.
The facts of the trial indicated that he was in need of psychiatric appraisal and
service. Previous records, in other communities, supported this decision. He
agreed that this type of help was needed and was willing to pursue it during
the course of his probation.
During the first few visits with the Chief Probation Officer he was most
suspicious and guarded toward any attempt to help him begin to evaluate the
attitudes and actions that led to his conviction. He was in deep financial debt at
the time, unable to find consistent work and most fearful that his parents and
immediate relatives would learn of his present difficulty. Because of his financial
inabilities he found it difficult to begin to consistently meet with his psychiatrist.
A letter from his psychiatrist supported this fact and further stated that his
present attitude and inconsistent pattern of meeting appointments was producing
little or no satisfactory results.
It became evident to the Chief Probation Officer that one of the major "road
blocks" to this young man's relationship with his psychiatrist was his unwilling-
ness to place complete faith in his appraisals and suggestions. With this belief
in mind, the Chief Probation Officer began to encourage him, with firmness and
understanding, to try to stop second-guessing his psychiatrist and to give him a
chance to help. Fortunately, this appeal worked and it was not long before it
began to show tangible results in his psychiatric relationship.
During the months that followed he was presented an opportunity to relate to
the probation department's group therapy relationship. His conduct in this situ-
ation developed into a very positive outlook. At this time he also began to express
to the Chief Probation Officer a sincere concern about the conduct that produced
his conviction. Shortly thereafter he stated that he planned to continue his rela-
tionship with his psychiatrist after the term of his probation was concluded.
He stated that he was now looking forward to his weekly appointment of group
tbf^rapy with "eagerness". He explained that he has told his "complete story" in
this group. He further stated that he was "no longer ashamed, in this group, of
past problems, particularly the one that led to his probation". He began to recog-
nize that a problem existed and that there are ways to conquer it.
935
It is believed tliat this young man has benefited a great deal from the influence
and encouragement of this program of probation. He has expressed his faith in
the friendship of his psychiatrist and the Chief Probation OflBcer. This apparently
has given him renewed strength. He further stated that the repetition and con-
sistent reminding of his probationary and group therapy meetings have proven
most beneficial to his change of attitude and conduct. This observation is sup-
ported by a statement from his psychiatrist who reported "He is seriously moti-
vated to work out some of his problems". Another tangible result of this re-
orientation has been his ability to secure and koep a job. He has also enrolled in
a number of night school courses, at college level, to complement his new em-
ployment. It is felt that he is much improved as a result of this program.
CASE SUMMARY — 8
In this case, a respondent was about to be charged with a felony which did not
involve violence. Unlawfully Driving Away an Automobile. The law enforcement
agencies suggested, after a record check revealed that the respondent had no
prior record, that the charge be reduced to a misdemeanor and that he be put on
probation. They also advised that the defendant was sexually perverted. He was
pur on probation. When the Chief Probation Oflicer first talked to the respondent,
a male of about 19 years of age, the respondent said, "I am just bad. I have always
been bad. I would like to get better, but there is no hope for me". The Chief
Probation Officer referred him to one of our psychiatrists. After about 6 weeks
■of hospitalization, the boy was released. He came directly to us and said, "I
owe .vou everything. Now I can have a wife, family, friends. Now I can be some-
body in the community". After his release from the hospital he returned to high
school and successfully completed the necessary work to graduate. As a followup
t(! his hospitalization, he also continued to see. on a monthly basis, his psychi-
atrist, a volunteer sponsor and the Chief Probation Officer. Later he was re-
leased from these monthly meetings with the appraisal that the patterns of his
previous deviant behavior were no longer evident. There is no doubt that the
"•'inlone? of this proltntion program, with the professional assistance of one of our
program's psychiatrists, changed this young man's pattern and outlook on life.
When this offender was discharged from probation he said. "This is the final
chapter in my readjustment to society". Now five years later, he continues to lead
a normal, useful life.
CASE SUMMAKY^ — 9
The next example of how the program operates can be set forth as follows :
A youthful offender pleaded guilty to using a motor vehicle without authority.
It was quite evident during the initial interview between the Chief Probation
Officer, the offender, and his attorney, that one of the basic patterns that con-
tributed to his conviction was his poor choice of companions. As a result, the
specific obligations of his probationary term was to avoid persons and places of
questionable and harmful character.
This young man was soon assigned to a volunteer sponsor. An early outcome
of their relationship was the discovery, by the sponsor, of the offender's interest
in the pursuing of a career in commercial art. He was lost as to how he could
pursue this interest and apparent talent. His confu.«.ion was compounded by a
lack of the necessary finances. The sponsor, through a series of contacts, was able
to inspire this young man to enroll in a commercial art course at a very nominal
expense. With this renewed positive interest and consistent guidance from the
counselor, this young man soon developed a very fine attitude toward a course
of life quite the opposite from his previous attitude.
CASE SUMMARY — 10
The following case epitomizes the relationship we hope to establish between
the offender and his volunteer sponsor. Added to this is the potential influence
of the church. The influence of the church is mentioned because this offender's
renewed interest in his faith was established through this program of Probation.
The young adult in this case represented, at the time of his placement on pro-
bation, a home broken by separation and impending divorce. When questioned
about his interpretation of the relationship between his mother and father he
replied. "They are both stubborn, they will probably go back together ; I don't
pay much attention". He further related that this had been the marital relation-
ship of his parents as long as he could remember. The probationer had quit school
936
at the 10th grade level and had been engaged in heavy manual labor for the past
3 years. He had a steady record of employment in this job. An earlier contact
with the court had come as a juvenile when he was placed on one year's proba-
tion due to a breaking and entry conviction.
His present probation resulted from his pleading guilty to the charge of
"driving without due care". It soon became evident to the Chief Probation Officer
that the probationer's greatest area of potential weakness was in the area of
driving a motor vehicle. At the time of his placement on probation he owned
two cars. The early meetings were devoted primarily to a discussion of his re-
sponsibility as a motor vehicle operator. He also attended the Court's Driver
Safety School which is sponsored by the Royal Oak Association of Independent
Insurance Agents. The school charges no tuition fee and gives 8 hours of instruc-
tion to the violator.
Midway through his term of probation the probationer entered into a business
deal that ended in failure. As a result, the small amount of savings he had ac-
cumulated was gone and, even more tragic, so was his steady job. It was at this
point that the probationer's volunteer sponsor "jumped" to his aid. The volun-
teer sponsor owned a small business and he found it possible to give the proba-
tioner a steady job with liveable wages. This not only enabled him to maintain
himself but it also gave him the necessary financial backing to follow through
on the marriage he was planning.
Recently the Chief Probation Officer has met with both the probationer and
his wife and they report being comfortably settled in their own apartment with
plans to soon rent a house. The probationer continues to work for his volunteer
sponsor and he has proven himself a dependable and capable employee.
Another outcome of the Probation Officer's conferences with the probationer
and his wife was the discovery that they both were seeking a new church af-
filiation. With their choice of churches established a referral was made to the
pastor of the church and to date the pastor has made several home visits to help
them reestablish this interest •
AYe believe this case summarizes our philosophy of probation. The securing
of employment, through the volunteer sponsor, had a profound effect on this
offender. He continues on probation with improved attitudes toward himself,
his community, and his new marriage.
CASE SUMMARY- — 11
The offender in the next case pleaded guilty of committing an illegal and
improper act with sexual implications. During the course of the trial he stated
that he had been drinking heavily and denied any memory of what he did from
the time he left the bar until he returned home. A psychiatric evaluation was
required and willingly subscribed to by the offender. He continued monthly
psychiatric treatments for about 7 months.
During the first few probation visits he was quite ill at ease during the inter-
view period. He resented the visits to the psychiatrists, stating that it did him
no good. The psychiatrist's report indicated that drinking and poor marital sexual
adjustment were basic factors in the man's problem.
This gentleman became active in A. A. and after several visits assumed some
responsibility in the organization. He recently stated, during an interview with
the probation officer, that his negative feelings toward the psychiatrist were
largely financial. We feel good rapport with the probation officer was achieved
when he was able to openly discuss his feelings about the psychiatrist, his
drinking and consequent involvement with women, the effect that his drinking
had on both his marital and family relationships.
Tlie psychiatric report indicated emotional immaturity, recommending regular
supervision and encouragement. At this time we feel the probation program is
affording this support.
CASE SUMMARY 12
Another case will illustrate the role of the volunteer psychiatrist. A defendant
pleaded guilty to drunk and disorderly conduct. There was some indication
of an intended pervert act toward a young child. However, the evidence was
insufficient to justify a charge, let alone give rise to a conviction. The defendant
had twice before in that year been convicted of drunkenness in other courts.
Short jail terms were prescribed in both cases. They treated him as just another
unfortunate alcoholic.
937
The psychiatrist in residency training interviewed the defendant prior to
sentencing. He soon discovered that the defendant was in an advanced state
of alcoholic deterioration. The supervising psychiatrist and two volunteer psy-
chiatrists confirmed the diagnosis. All agreed that the defendant was highly
dangerous.
We learned that the defendant had a service-connected disability. The VA
was contacted and the defendant, based upon the psychiatric reports, was con-
fined to a VA hospital for an indefinite period of time and until cured. Only In
this manner could the public be properly protected.
Thus, due to the efforts of the psychiatrists, a desperate and dangerous case
of mental illness was detected in spite of the relatively minor manifestation of
that serious illness. Through the psychiatrists' efforts, society did not this time
have to wait for a serious crime to happen before providing for the treatment of
the defendant and the protection of society.
CASE SUMMARY 13
Yet another example concerns the role of an employer-volunteer sponsor. The
owner of a tool company offered to employ a youngster who was on probation.
This young man was not doing well on probation and was, in our opinion, a
"felony looking for a place to happen". The employer spent many hours after the
day's work was over talking to the young probationer.
After some months, the probationer's change of attitude was evident. He got
a more responsible job with the company. He enrolled in night school. He began
to have faith in the fact that he was "somebody". This young man is simply not
the same person.
CASE SUMMARY 14
A woman probationer was assigned to a housewife with training in psychology.
She was very distrustful at first of her new volunteer sponsor. The first few
months on probation were not successful. Then one night her baby took sud-
denly ill. She remembered the volunteer's suggestion to "call me anytime". She
called the volunteer at 2 :00 A.M. Within a half hour the volunteer's own doctor
was at her residence and the baby was in the hospital shortly thereafter. The
volunteer even paid the doctor and hospital bill. The defendant paid her back
promptly.
The probationer never gave us or any other criminal court any more cause for
concern. She said, "You really do want to help me. I will not let you down".
CASE SUMMARY — 15
Another youngster was sincerely dedicated to the economic and philosophical
theory that, "only squares work^. He was assigned to a volunteer who suggested
that they have lunch at the executive dining room of the automotive company
where the volunteer was employed in an executive capacity. The first few times
the probationer showed up without a suit or tie and unshaven. The volunteer
did not comment thereon. After a few meetings, he suddenly showed up well-
dressed and clean-shaven. He said, "How do you get a job?" When the volunteer
reminded him that only squares work, he said, "Yeah, that's what I thought, but
looking around this room each week has given me a new idea about what this
is all about".
The volunteer helped him get a job with a steel company. A few more months
and several more meetings went by when the probationer asked aliout the ap-
prentice program. With the volunteer's help, he applied and was accepted. He
did well in the apprentice program and now has a responsible position. The volun-
teer said, when the defendant was discharged from probation, "This man is sim-
ply not the same person."
CASE SUMMARY — 16
In yet another case, a chief counselor noted that a young probationer had a
terrific problem with his teeth. It badly marred his appearance. The chief coun-
selor was sure that this was part of his problem.
He contacted a local university and arranged with the dental school to have
the probationer receive extensive treatment from a student dentist acting under
the superA'ision of his professor. The teeth problem was solved in a few month.s.
There has been no further diflBculty with the probationer.
95-158— 73— pt. 2 20
938
CASE SUMMARY — 17
Another volunteer dropped everything to assist a probationer with a legal
problem. The landlord had evicted the probationer and was wrongfully holding
his stove. The probationer and his wife had no way to warm their baby's bottle.
The volunteer dropped everything he was doing that day and went to'his home
to pick up and to lend to the probationer a baby bottle warmer for his temporary
use.
Then they went to a nearby court and got out a writ of replevin to recover
possession of the stove. The volunteer, who was not a lawyer, assisted the defend-
ant in preparing the court papers. For the first time in his life, the probationer
was appearing in civil court as a plaintiff rather than in criminal court as a
defendant. They got the stove back, but they also accomplished a lot more than
that. The probationer has not been back in any criminal court again.
CASE SUMMARY — 1 8
L. Came to the court's attention for being intoxicated. When he was first seen
by the counselor he was unshaven and quite disheveled. His eyes were watery
and had a rather strange, faraway look in them. His thinking seemed rather
odd and a referral to the psychiatrist brought the information that the boy was
a schizophrenic whose thinking was quite disturbed. During the first year of his
two year probation there was much difficulty in getting him to come to appoint-
ments and many threats were made by the probation department. The boy vv-as
not able to hold a job and v/ould drift from one job to another. He was obviously
very sick emotionally, but refused any kind of help that was offered. Counseling
with this boy consisted of pointing out reality to him continuously. About one
year into the probationary period, he met a girl whom he wanted to marry. A
relationship seemed to have been established between the probationer and' the
counselor by this point in that he brought the girl to meet the counselor. They
planned marriage and were married shortly thereafter. From the time of meeting
the girl, the probationer's behavior changed drastically from being a very non-
conforming individual who violated probation by such things as throwing a beer
bottle out of his car onto a parked police car, and he maintained that his change
in behavior was due to the fact that he got married. Throughout the second year
of his probation he has kept out of trouble and has worked consistently at tlie
same job. He, in fact, maintains that he wants to learn all aspects of his job
so he can move on. It seems that the stability of a wife and the long term stability
of a probation counselor may have been of great aid to this very disturbed in-
dividual. Perhaps the probation counselor provided the initial stability which
he had never found and the initial relationship which he had never been en-
gaged in and his wife continues to provide this relationship.
CASE SUMMARY — 19
T. came to the court's attention for window peeping while under the influence
of alcohol. It was felt, in the pre-sentence investigation, that he was a rather
dull individual intellectually and there was much evidence to support this in
that he had dropped out of school, had done poorly in school, and on an intel-
ligence test had performed rather low. There was evidence to contraindicate his
dull level of performance, however, in that he had been able to hold a skilled
trade job for some period of time. When the probation counselor met the pro-
bationer for the first time the probationer did not have time to clean up from
his work and was quite dirty. He was apologetic about this, but the probation
counselor did not reprimand him nor make any negative comments, feeling that
this man's work was a very strong basis for helping him. At the same time, the
man's own feeling of self-respect was quite lowered in that his wife was threaten-
ing to divorce him because of the act that got him into trouble. The probation
counselor's tact was to try and build this man's own self-confidence. The pro-
bation counselor felt that using the man's good work record was the best basis
to work on. In IS months of probation, this man never acted out again and never
again drank. He did not go to Alcoholics Anonymous. The probation counselor
would spend their sessions in asking this man a great deal about his trade and
getting to know the trade himself. The probationer openly admitted that he
enjoyed coming for our visits and it was quite apparent that the man was not
dull and could function very adequately. In a very short time after they met. the
probationer would appear for his visits in a very clean and groomed state. It is
939
felt that the probation counselor's technique of trying to build self-respect in
this man through the man's work habits was highly successful.
Chairman Pepper. Will Governor Hughes please come forward.
Governor Hughes, we are honored and most grateful to you for
being here with us. We know of your spendid record, not only as a
Governor and leader of an American city in political life, but a r.ian
who has made an enormous contribution to the problem of better
administration of justice in the curbing of crime, working with and
for the American Bar Association,
So, we are particularly grateful to have you here this morning.
]Mr. Lynch, is there anything you would like to add before we call
the Governor?
Mr. Lynch. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to point out for purposes of the record that Governor
Hughes brings to this hearing a special expertise in this field. Pie
served, beginning in 1939, as an assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey.
He served many years as a judge of Mercer County Court in New Jer-
sey. Subsequently he was Governor for 8 years, and he now serves as
the chairman of the American Bar Association Commission on Correc-
tional Facilities and Services.
Governor, would you please give your statement ?
Chairman Pepper, Excuse me, just a minute.
As you no doubt know already, these hearing, which will last at
least 3 weeks — this is the second week — are dealing with street crime,
and we are trying to find out the best thinking in the country that
suggests what more may be done than we are now doing to curb
crime of a violent or serious character in this country.
The first week we had 12 police departments of the country repre-
sented here, each of which had an innovative and imaginative pro-
gram, which is achieving success in curbing crimes in those respective
areas. This week is devoted primarily to correctional institutions for
youth and for adults. We have had, as you heard here, outstanding
thinkers in the country, outstanding administrators in dealing with
the problem of youth, delinquency, and crime.
Governor, you are especially knowledgeable in the subject, and we
are most grateful to have you.
STATEMENT OF EICHAED J. HUGHES, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION COMMISSION ON CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND
SERVICES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ; ACCOMPANIED BY DANIEL L.
SKOLER, STAFF DIRECTOR; AND ROBERT C. FORD, DIRECTOR,
ACTIVATION PROGRAM FOR CORRECTIONAL REFORM
Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Winn, IMr.
Lynch, Mr. McDonald. ^
I would like to have the committee's permission, if I could, to go
aside from my prepared testimony and complement the statement of
Judge Leenhouts. I fully support it. He is indeed a great American,
and this volunteer effort he mentions has been an inspiration to people
all over the countr3\
As a matter of fact, I feel humble to follow him, because my exper-
tise, although you refer to it vei-y kindly, is nothing at all to match
his.
940
In any case, it is an honor to be here and to share with the commit-
tee eng-aged in this important hearing, some thoughts on just what
the plight of our correctional system is and what relationship it has to
the sickness in the country, the street crime and violence. Also, I would
like to talk about some promising directions for improvement.
I am accompanied by an expert witness, our staff director, Dan
Skoler, who will be available to answer any question I can't from the
committee and there may be many. He is the chief architect of the
success of our corrections commission, whose programs I would like to
'describe very briefly.
Chairman Pepper. ]Mr. Skoler, we know about your expertise and the
valuable contribution you have made. We are very grateful to you
for accompanying the Governor today.
Mr. Skoler. We also have at the table with us Robert C. Ford, who
is director of our commission's bar activation program for correctional
reform, the thrust of which is to work full time with State and local
bar associations in the same work the American Bar Association is
engaged in concerning correctional reform.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Ford, we extend a particular welcome to
jou.
Cxovernor, we want to advise you, Mr. Skoler, and Mr. Ford that
We are going to call upon you for help and counsel if we may when
we prepare our final report in respect to these hearings and in respect
to these subjects.
Mr. Hughes. We will look forward to that partnership and appre-
ciate it.
As any good American, especially since we are citizens and human-
beings, we like to look at our country and think about it as "America
the Beautiful." We think about its historic birth and pioneer spirit,
its longing for right, for justice, its generosity and courage and the
strength of this country ; but if we look again at our country, we see
another side, a much more dismal picture. We se-e pollution and
poverty and the terrible, frightening drug culture, the discrimination
and hatred that still exists, and the growing disregard for law, with
all of its frightening crime and violence.
This is a very different picture and it is a sickness that is so mysteri-
ous many people are confused when thev try to explain it. It misfht
have been the tragedv of Vietnam, it might have sometliing to do with
the decay of our cities, or the drugs, or the permissive society, so-
called, or the comparative prosperity in which our children have
grown up.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me. Governor. The light has gone on.
They are now having a vote. If j^ou will indulge us, we will run over,
vote, and come right back.
fA brief reoess was taken.]
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
Governor, we are sorry we had to interrupt. You may proceed.
Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the committee knoAvs, the leading spokesman for correctional
reform in this country today is Chief Justice Warren Burger, who
reminded us recently of ". . . the melancholy truth that it has taken
the tragic prison outbreaks of the past 3 years to focus widespread
public attention on this problem."
941
That tlierc is a problem — that there is a critical and dangerottS
breakdown in our correctional systems is beyond dispute. Even the
age-old apathy of the public is beginning to be pierced by the repeti-
tive horrors of which it reads and learns — the institutional suicides,,
the violent sexual abuse and even murder of younger prisoners, the
frustrating level of recidivism, the riots at the Tombs and Plolmesburg:
and San Quentin, and finally the shocking American tragedy of At-
tica. Dean Robert jMcKay describes Attica in his commission's report
as displaying only "the tip of tlie liery hell which lies below,"
I might say that the film of that commission's report is in our pos-
session and we have told ISIr. Lynch it will be made available to the
committee. It is a very interesting film of the actual Attica riot, its
setting and aftermath.
Chairman Pepper. We would like very much to have that, Governor.
Tliank you.
Mv. Hughes. I know that, among other aspects of this problem, the
committee and its staff have been studying the emerging law on legal
riglits of those incarcerated in our jails and prisons. I suspect that the
chaiiTnan and the members may share with me some feeling of restless-
ness at the ambivalent slowness with which courts are turning away
from the callous "hands-off" doctrine which has persisted for many
years. It has been described by one court as "a questionable absolutism."
One extreme of its application was by a Virginia court which once
said, years ago :
[the convicted felon]
hfis". as n consequence of his crime, not only forfeited liis liberty, Imt all his
isersonal rights except those which tlie law in its humanity accords to Iiim. He
is for the time being the slave of the State.
If you will excuse a lawyer and former judge for being cynical,
I would regard a dependence upon "the humanity of the law" what-
ever that is. as a slender reed indeed. I would much rather look to the
Constitution, the writ of habeas corpus and the Federal Civil Eights
Act. And. as you will hear, the courts are coming to believe this too,
as held by the Federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in
1966, which said :
The hands-off doctrine operates reasonably to the extent that it prevents judi-
cial review of deprivations which are necessary or reasonable concomitants of
imprisonment. Depriva'tions of reasonable medical care . . . are not among such
concomitants, however. Prisoners are entitled to medical care. . . . AVhere there
is no administrative provision for an impartial resolution of factual issues
underlying such claims, there is no alternative to judicial inquiry, even though
many, or even mogt of such claims may be asserted irresponsibly.
Even in the days of Blackstone, it was written that :
... to confine a prisoner in a low, damp, unwholesome room, not allowing
him the common conveniences which the decencies of nature require, by which
the habits of his constitution are so affected as to produce a distemper of which
he dies ; this also is felonious homicide. . . . For though the law invests gaolers
with all necessary powers for the interest of 'the commonwealth, they are not
to behave with the least degree of wanton cruelty to their prisoners.
On tho subject of medical conditions, legal protectioiis — or the lack
of them — my references only sci'atch the surface of the inadequacies
and substandard conditions of much of our correctional apparatus.
How shocking it also is to realize that aside from Federal and some
Stat« prisons, almost half of our Nation's jails and prisons have no
942
medical facilities of any kind, and many have no access whatever to
a physician. The prisoner in a diabetic coma, or suffering an epileptic
seizure, or acutely deranged and suicidal, may languish and die, one
might believe, for all America cares. But you and I know that this
is not true and that this evil condition results from our indifference
and not our intent, although the result might be the same.
This is why our ABA Commission is honored to be associated with
the American ISIedical Association in developing a program "to insti-
tute and improve medical and health services in the Nation's jails and
prisons." It is to upset this indifference, to change this dismal and
dangerous course, that the legal and medical professions have come
together with respect to solving this problem of our times.
It was with the same burden on our collective professional conscience
that the American Bar Association Commission on Correctional Facil-
ities and Services is now striking out on many other fronts to overcome
the indifference and neglect of the past.
Remembering what Judge Leenhouts said about expanded proba-
tion and parole, the breakdown in corrections is so pervasive that we
can put aside at: once the thought that any jurisdiction can rest easily
on an illusion of perfection. If New York has an Attica, other States
liave reformatories to which any judge would hesitate to commit a
juvenile.
If one State has a splendid State prison system, its county jails are
a mess and many of its judges go without probation services. It seems
intolerable to me that probation services are nonexistent or a mere
shell in many jurisdictions. To be without adequate probation is to
be only half a judge. And the damage done by useless incarceration
where probation facilities are unavailable is a most serious problem.
Slopp3^ parole practices often contribute in a substantial way to
institutional unrest, not to speak of the resulting wreckage of human
lives. I am sorry that Congressman Sandman is not here because I
would remind him that in my own State of New Jersey, a progressive
Governor is seeking parole reform, but is frustrated by a backlash of
fear and suspicion. In the area of inmate health, Governor Cahill has
sent the meclical battalion of our National Guard into every institu-
tion to inventory the health condition of every inmate. He has pro-
posed in his current budget an increase in medical facilities which
would provide a more favorable ratio of doctors, dentists, nurses, and
psychologists to inmates than the ratio available for care of the sfeneral
population. This, on the rationale in the words of Governor Cahill's
budget message that : "Attention has focused across the country on the
physical conditions of imprisonment, the need for upgrading basic
correctional programs and the civil rights of the convicted * * *."
So it is that executive initiative can advance correctional reform
even without judicial prodding, but on the simple basis of common
justice to the offender who, in the main, has been treated over the
years with a reckless cruelty by a society not inherently cruel, but only
negligent and indifferent. But we are also talking of justice to that
society, now fully exposed, as the committee knows, not only in its
city streets but in its comfortable suburbs, to the violence and
crime to be expected from the released prisoner who emerges brutal-
ized, corrupted and embittered by his "correctional" experience. It
seems a paradox that in our State of New Jersey the Governor has
943
had to abandon, because of public objection, liis hope to replace our
ancient, long-since condennied State prison, with institutions of
smaller population and more effective potential.
Yet we may be encouraged by the cycle of public apathy and public
attention. Twenty years ago people cared nothing about air and water
pollution — because they did not understand the immediacy of the
danger to themselves, to every one of us. Now, protection of the
environment is a primary national goal, to save ourselves from
being poisoned by the end of this century.
Another example is the phenomenon of juvenile drug addiction.
When it was confined to the city ghettos, many of us did not care ;
but now that it has reached into every suburban high school, every-
body cares. And so it is, I think, that people are" now coming to
understand the need for correctional reform, and how it touches them
and their families personally.
It is thus with a real hope that we are about to turn this corner
of neglect, that I have been so encouraged in my work as chairman
of the ABA Corrections Commission. Penal system improvement
represents a priority concern of our association. When we organized,
we discarded the idea of studying again the problems of corrections,
and inclined our energies toward action programs.
We have in process our first practical undertakings, including a
national volunteer program in which young lawyers work as aides
providing intensive one-to-one assistance to offenders on parole, a
l^rogram already showing evident success in 12 States.
We are associated with the xVmerican Correctional Association, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and others on another
project, a clearinghouse program focusing on unreasonable employ-
ment restrictions which im}:)air the ability of a rehabilitated offender
to find suitable job opportunities. If we expect to bring the ex-
offender into the mainstream of useful work, we must not forbid his
opportunity at the very outset.
We are developing with the American Association of Community
and Junior Colleges a national effort to stimulate college lei-el educa-
tion of custodial and other line correctional personnel. The goal is to
further professionalize these correctional people who come in such
close daily contact with prisoners and have so much to do with their
eventual destiny — for good or bad.
We have established a Resource Center for correctional law and
legal services to provide direct litigational support of test cases and
to publish manuals concerning specific areas such as harsh and irra-
tional sentences, mail censorship, jail conditions, parole problems, civil
disabilities and other similar topics.
We have energized a statewide jail standards and inspection systems
project. This seeks to stimulate State legislation to I'equire minimum
standards of decency and good practice in jail and juvenile detention
facilities.
We also have a program to activate State and local bar associations
to concern themselves with penal system improvement. That is the
project that our good jMr. Ford directs. To our delight, more than 20
States and 10 major local bars have established special committees on
correctional improvement. In addition, a dozen more such committees
944
exist within junior bar, young lawyers, or other sections of State and
local bar associations.
One project most exciting to our commission, which I imagine
would be most exciting to this committee, in which we are working
with the National District Attorneys Association, involves the pretrial
diversion of early offenders. This program would identify young
offenders at the outset of a criminal career and temporarily suspend
prosecution while the offender receives counseling, education or man-
power services.
Should the offenders respond favorably, and already the prospects
are encouraging, prosecution will be dropped and we will have saved
one more American from entering the corrupting and destructive cycle
of criminal imprisonment. We hope this idea will spread throughout
the country for we have much to gain in this preventive effort.
We think our commission's work has been effective in emphasizing
two reasons for the growing public concern with correctional reform,
neither of them, please note, associated primarily with a feeling of
humanity or charity or softness toward the offender. The benefit-cost
ratio is extremely important at a time when public expenditures are
severely afflicting every taxpayer. The per capita cost of unnecessary
and prolonged imprisonment has been estimated by some authoritative
groups to exceed $10,000 a year. Let us then consider another factor,
namely that excellent probation or parole supervision with constant
attention to the offender to keep him on the straight path, could be
had for a per capita cost of less than $1,000 a year. We ask ourselves
which system makes better sense, assuming that the security of society
is not endangered? And what monumental stupidity it seems to be
to select imprisonment where that it is not necessary to the security
of society.
Even more importantly, the second point of our case involves the
final product of our correctional system. A man who comes out of
prison or a reformatory much more corrupted and criminal than he
was when he went in, is a dangerous man. We have built a monster who
is a threat to the whole fabric of our society and every family in it.
This factor, too, while certainly not altruistic, is a very important one
if we are talking about crime in America. From my experience as a
judge, a prosecutor, a lawyer and finally as governor, I express the
opinion that if by some miracle our correctional system were to be
reformed overnight, crime in America, including street crime, would
be reduced by one half at least.
Our ABA Commission has an interdisciplinary membership includ-
ing the redoubtable Dr. Karl Menninger, and we work with a staff of
excellent professionals from our offices in Washington. We have a
grant from the Ford Fomidation and various Federal grants, and we
have constantly been encouraged by Chief Justice Burger in our work
for reform. I believe our efforts are beginning to bear fruit in creating
a sense of identity between the public and the problem which is neces-
sai-y, of course, to the accomplishment of any reform.
And so while the problems we face are monumental, I am beginning
to feel a sense of optimism that the public will support a reversal of
the trend which has brought us to our present sorry condition. I have
always been inspired by a remark that I think was attributed to John
Kennedy. It was the effect that the tide of history need not run against
945
the United States, but can o-o in the direction in wliich strong and
determined men compel it to go.
If professional people, governmental officials, and citizens from all
walks of life can be inspired to join this effort, think what a power
for good, for affirmative reform, Avonld be generated. What a shining
challenge we would be meeting. What important goals we could ac-
complish. If we can but elevate the status of corrections in this country,
we will surely cut down the incidence of crime, which police power
with all its foi-ce has been unable to do ; and if we can once again be-
come a law-abiding and peaceful society, you can see how nuich we will
be contributing to the interest of our coimtry and perhaps have some-
thing to do witli saving it from the unhappy problems which afflict us
on every hand today.
Our commission is well aware of the Select Committee's interest
and the chairman's personal concern with this phase of the criminal
justice process. W^e know of its close scrutiny of the Attica and Raiford
prison disorders and look forward to the committee's forthcoming
special report entitled "Prisons in Turmoil." It is gratifying to see
that the Select Committee has looked beyond the simple and obvious
questions of physical security and custodial force to emphasize the
treatment and rehabilitation appi'oaches that must be fostered and
modernized if our correctional system is to achieve what it so desper-
ately needs — a better success rate. Because of their inherent merit
and because so many of them march in step with our own programs
and priorities, we wish your work well and hope that its public and
governmental impact will be strong and immediate.
Our President, I think, has summed up the case well. And — I should
]:)arenthesize here — he has supported the work of our commission very
strongly from the outset. He said :
At long last, this Nation is coming to realize that the process of justice
cannot end with the slamming shut of prison gates. Ninety-eight out of every
hundred criminals who are sent to prison come back into society. . . .
Locking up a convict is not enough. We must also offer him the keys of educa-
tion, of rehabilitation, of useful training, of hope — the keys he must have to
open the gates to a life of freedom and dignity.
And our Chief Justice has isolated the "critical variables," as he
calls them :
It is not the rhetoric of prison reform, but the moral and political commit-
ment expressed in concrete ways that move and change a modern democratic
society. High in this scale is the commitment of the public purse ; citizen
support for enlightened professional doctrine and practice ; new mechanisms,
such as training academies and information clearinghouses ; and translation
of sound standards into statutory and administrative reality.
It remains for the Congress to make the unique contri])ution that
only it can bring to national problems and values of this depth. It is
good to see the Select Committee on Crime devoting its remaining
energy and resources to this important work.
I know I speak for all of the members of our commission and the
bar association when I wish your committee well in its legislation.
Chairman PErPER. Governor, you made a magnificent statement
and we are most grateful to you for it, and for the contribution you
are making to fight this problem.
The members might have to leave, so I would like to give the mem-
bers of the committee first opportunity to que^^tion.
946
Mr. Mann?
Mr. Mann. Governor, I am somewhat enlightened by a statement
here that probation facilities are unavailable in some jurisdictions.
"What type of jurisdictions in general do you find lack tliose facilities ?
Mr. iSuGHES. I would say probation services are insufficient, al-
though not absent, in my own State of New Jersey. When I was an
assignment judge responsible for this I quarreled bitterly with the
county purseholders, the freeholder board, as we call them, and man-
aged by public and press attention to get them to double the amount
of probation services.
You see, if a jDrobation officer, no matter how good he is, has 200
juvenile offenders or adult offenders on his list, he is not going to be
able to do much more than have them come in once a month to
the courthouse and say, "Yes, I am doing pretty well." Mo home
visits, no supervision of any kind. His caseload ought to be about
30 or 35. There are estimates floating around that the cost of having
that kind of probation, good tight probation or parole, is at $500-$S0()
a year.
Some States have no probation. As a matter of fact, I think in
Nebraska, there are many parts without probation. In some places in
Texas, the judges have no probation officer at all.
Mr. Mann. I imagine it is somewhat the rule that courts such as
magistrate's courts and police courts don't have any facilities.
There seems to be a rising unrest in the ]-)risons about some of our
methods of parole. I find in my prison mail that they are demanding
some type of objective criteria by which they can earn parole, rather
than being at the mercy of the board. "\Yho was w'orking on that prob-
lem? Is anyone doing any constructive work?
Mr. Hughes. Our commission is urging many of the States in this
direction. I accompanied Chief Justice Burger to talk to the Gov-
ernor's conference 1 or 2 years ago. In our State, for instance, there
is a parole reforju bill which Governor Cahill is strongly sup]:)orting,
to clean up inadequate parole practices, which is the chief cause,
I would think, of prison unrest. That is, the parole board giving a
prisoner who is a worthy prisoner and rehabilitating himself the
"back of their hands," because tliev don't have the time. Part-time
boards, for instance, are a weak point.
But this parole reform bill is being frustrated by the usual opposi-
tion, "Are you going to let these bad people out among the public,'^
and so forth, which completely goes past the problem.
Mr. Mann. I wonder if we have identified any outstanding parole
system in the country? Does anyone know of any one that seems
to be working better than others ?
Mr. Hughes. I am going to refer that to Dan Skoler, if I may. He
was formerly with LEAA and is quite knowledgeable.
Mr. Skoler. I am really not prepared to answer that question, but
I do want to mention. Congressman, that the American Correctional
Association has a parole project supported by the Department of
Labor's Manpower Administration. This is working with States,
and I think is already operating in several States — California, and
Wisconsin beino- t^vo — and which does seek to define a program for
the parolee which makes clear to him what will be expected of him,
947
both in obtaining the grant of parole and operating on parole ^vith
definite incentives and goals,
Mr. Maxx. I think this is going to be an increasingly troublesome
problem and we need to put as good minds and projects on it as we
can.
Mr. Hughes. Could I offer to send down to the committee copies
of the New Jersey legislation, which I think is very useful, plus a
reform reference by our commissioner of institutions and agencies
in which he has administratively installed parole counselors to help
worthy prisoners who may be inarticulate and unable to express them-
selves, work up a job or family plan outside, and counsel them when
they come before the board — things of that nature ?
Chairman Pepper. We would be glad to have it. Please send it to us.
'Mv. Maxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information referred to above will be found at the end of
ISIr. Hughes' testimony.]
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Wiggins ?
yir. WiGGixs. Tliank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, I have no question concerning your testimony. I am going
to explore two new areas. After touching on the first area I intend to
yield to my colleague from Kansas, and then we will get back to my
second area, if time permits.
Your background provides the committee with the unique oppor-
tunity to ask questions of a man who has been a chief executive of an
important State of this Union, a judge, and an attorney as well. My
concern relates to the proper role of the judiciary in producing in-
ternal reforms within prisons.
As you know, to an ever-increasing extent, it has been the Federal
judiciary that has carried this burden as the result of petitions filed
imder section 1983 of title 42, a civil rights statute, or occasionally peti-
tions files for postconviction relief under section 2254 of title 28,
by State prisoners.
Particularly in the former case, the court is granted broad equity
power to compel action, and often the action that is compelled involves
expenditure of public funds. Now that raises a serious question in my
mind about the proper role of the judiciary in determining priorities
for public funds, when by their very nature they are not exposed to
the multiple challenges for funds, as is the case of a legislative body
or chief executive.
I think I have set the stage for the problem that disturbs me and
pei'haps you might expand on it and give me your observation.
]Mr. Hughes. The constitutional right and the civil rights remedy
of section 1983, approacliing now the same status as a "cruel and un-
usual punishment'' right, and so forth, at least in the eyes of many
courts, is one which must be recognized by the courts and dealt fairly
with. As you say, it is a very difficult ])]'oblem. For instance, in my
18 years as Governor of New jersey, I was totally unable to accomplish
any substantial measure of penal reform because I was afflicted with
the demands of colleges and education and highways and a lot of otlier
things.
To the credit of my successor, he is concentrating on that. That is
one of the reasons I am on this commission and spending about a third
of my time on it — to make up that second chance.
94S
Really, I think the court judge who insists on the common decencies
Blaclvstone called for in the quote I just read, is good for Governors
and for legislators, because it leaves them no alternative except to do
what they ought to be doing anyhow. In other words, they aren't
volunteers. Thev can't be called "do-gooders"' or "bleeding hearts" by
the public, if they are merely following the admonitions of the court.
Mr. Wiggins. Of course, the judgment as to what the Governor
ought to do is not society's judgment collectively, acting through their
legislative, but rather the judgment of the court, which may hear
only very narrow arguments. The court hears the arguments of the
petitioner or the plaintiff in that lawsuit. It hears the attorney general's
office argue in resistance to it, or some counsel. But the court doesn't
hear the interest of schools and people interested in roads and others.
It means either that the other values are going to be shortchanged
as we focus on jn-isons and the internal conditions of prisons, or it
means the total pie is going to be increased by new revenue brought
into the system as a result of a tax increase to take care of everybody.
But wliat really bothers me. Governor, is that the judge is making
that determination, ratlier than elected bodies and elected Governors.
Do vou think that is fundamentally iiicorrect in our system ?
Mr. Hughes. I think it is correct where a vacuum exists and where
the executive or legislative body doesn't attend to the problem. The
problem must be attended to.
For instance, a year or two ago in Dade County, which is a i^retty
good jail as jails go, a IT-year-old runaway boy was thrown in the
cage with 20 other ])retty bad prisoners, two of whom murdered him
during the night. They were only waiting for his father, a minister
from Georgia, to come down and pick him up. That shouldn't happen.
It will behoove a court at some level to say this kind of neglect can't
happen any more.
I am convinced that the general public doesn't want these things to
happen. They don't want people to die from neglect in jail. They
don't want cruelty.
Mr. Wiggins. The general public has not responded generously to
bond issues when presented to them for reform, or at least the moderni-
zation, of the penal system.
Mr. Hi^GHES. That is correct. And it is too bad. That problem is part
of the administrative concern of our commission and, for instance,
this committee. I have noticed, however, after a long time in public
life, that sometimes the Governor or legislator has to get out in front
and do m hat is right, even though his mail doesn't run 30-to-l in favor
of that.
Mr. Wiggins. We saw a lower Federal judge here in the District of
Columbin, if my memory serves me right, ordering that anv commit-
ment to Lorton was cruel and unusual. Accordingly, the whole insti-
tution was to be closed down, and somebody had to provide the alter-
native of a different institution or turn those people loose.
That perhaps dramatizes the kind of problem I am talking about,
where that judge had made his assessment of the priorities for the
public expenditures and said more money should go into prisons as
distinguished fi'om perhaps some other area. I don't laiow the ulti-
mate disposition of that case. 1 suspect it may have been revei'sed,
but at least it dramatizes the problem.
949
Mv. Hughes. It h;is to be that way. Sometimos that is the only way
the right can prevaiL As you say, the public mind is hard to dent
on this subject, but judges throughout the country have been clos-
ing jails.
Mr. WiOGiNS. Does it bother you tliat it is a Federal judge closing a
State jail?
]Slr. Hughes. If a State prisoner is being deprived of his constitu-
tional rights, for instance, if kids are being thrown in with some of
these older, hardened, brutal prisoners, it is the judge's duty, I think.
The judge would be very unjudicial not to recognize that and, hot or
cold, make his decision. Then tlie legislators and the money producers
would have to worry about it from there on. But the judge can't turn
his back on it.
Mr. Wiggins. Shouldn't there be an exhaustion of remedies require-
ment in the case of section 1083 petitions? Do you know the problem to
which I am speaking? I think Mr. Skoler does, if he would like to
comment upon this problem.
Mr. Skoler. Yes. The dilemma referred to by the Congressman is
a very real one. As a matter of fact, the courts, perhaps from frustra-
tion with the decree aspect of their decisions, are becoming more posi-
tive and more detailed in the kinds of orders they want submitted to
remedy unconstitutional conditions in prisons and jails. There are
real cost questions involved in implementing these decisions. It has
been my observation, however, that in the test of a decree like closing
a jail down, or determining there must be arlditional space, which does
ultimately ref(uire a bond issue and executive action, there are suffi-
cient forces on. the other side to create a mediating influence. That
is, the court activism in the defense of constitutional rights in these
cases doen't fully win out. The give-and-take usually involves a com-
promise between limited public dollars and the judicial assertion of
constitutional rights.
So you do wind up with a more reasoned result than one that just
has to make way for the kind of executive priorities you talk about.
]Mr. AViGGixs.' I will conclude this portion with the observation that
I. for one. would certainly not wish to repeal section 1983, but on the
other hand, insofar as judges are exercising their equity jurisdiction
by compelling affirmative action as distinguished from injunctive
relief, which of necessity will require the expenditure of public funds,
that in their own self-interest, if not in the interest of the society as a
whole, tliey exercise great restraint and not be too much of a pioneer
in this field, because the public reaction could be gross and most un-
fortiniate to the judiciary.
I have other questions I will get to after Mr. Winn.
Chairman Peiter. Mr. Winn?
Mr. Wixx. Mr. Chairman. I would yield some of my time to my
colleague from California, who is a fine lawyer. And since I am not a
lawyer, I would like to hear him explore his field.
Mr. Wiggins. I want to carry on with just a few questions on the
subject that our colleague. Mr. INIann. talked about; namely, pai'ole.
At the present time, statutes in this country range all the way from
granting to parole authorities maximum discretion to determine the
total period of confinement, to almost no discretion at all, as in the
case of mandatory sentences, no parole being authorized.
■ 950
A maximum discretion statute is really in the nature of an indeter-
minate sentence procedure.
Do YOU have any views as to the proper balance here of what is right
and what is wrong ?
jMr. Hughes. Yes. I had occasion to veto repeatedly mandatory
sentences, 2 years, 8 years, 10 years, all of which would have hand-
cuffed the judge and perhaps compelled him to commit great injustice
in a given case, or resulted in a very evil person being acquitted in a
given case, because of the nature of the sentence. I thought as a law-
yer that they were totally wrong.
Xow, I know this drug problem is becoming so frightening to many
people that that mandatory stiff sentence seems to be quite appealing.
I know in New Jersey that the new parole reform bill, which would
give the parole people authority any time after 6 months of a com-
mitment, no matter how long a sentence, to consider and grant parole,
is meeting great public resistance. In Massachusetts, a prisoner must
serve two-thirds of the maximum of his sentence before being con-
sidered for parole. This is causing enormous unrest, as you may have
noticed in the papers, in the maximum security institutions in
Massachusetts.
So these extremes are, I think, wrong. I think the answer lies in
liberalizing of parole availability but strengthening the parole boards
in their procedures. In Xew Jersey, I think by the end of this year
that the case of every prisoner will again have been reviewed.
Mr. Wiggins. We cherish the notion that the court is in the best
position to sentence an offender fairly, and balance the interest of so-
ciety and the needs of the defendant.
I really doubt that. I think that a court is sentencing a man at the
wrong time. The court has just heard all of the grisly details of a
heinous offense, perhaps. Of course, he has the benefit of the im-
passioned plea of defense counsel and he has the presentencing report.
But tlie pomt is, he is making the judgment at the wrong point in
time. We are talking about the future of the given offender and his
hoped for rehabilitation and we are making that determination in
passion. And I think that is incorrect.
I realize reforms in this area are very difficult to enact because of the
hysteria that surrounds the matter of sentencing offenders. But would
it be enlightening, in your view. Governor, if we moved in the direc-
tion at least of an indeterminate sentence, perhaps not totally wide
open where a convict is unclear as to how long he is going to have to
serve, but at least in that direction, granting greater flexibility to
parole boards to determine whether or not at some point in time in
the future an individual offender has been sufficiently rehabilitated
to be reintroduced into society ?
Mr. Hughes. There is a wave of public reaction to that sort of
thine", which I think would make it pretty much unworkable. I would
T)refer the New Jersey system, which gives what we call an indetermi-
nate sentence — and we are talking about different definitions of the
word — not less than 3 nor no more than 10 years in the New Jersey
State prison.
Under the present law, when the minimum is accomplished, or one-
third of the maximum, that man with good time — good behavior time
and work-time taken off — can be considered for parole.
951
Cong-ressman, I think the first thing, and I think something the
public would support if it could only learn the cost-benefit ratio from
this committee, would be making sure there is excellent probation —
fine probation facilities available to every judge in the country.
Mr. Wiggins. I think there is greater public resistance to probation
thiiJi there is to parole. The public wants to see a man go to jail, and
tliej are very resistant to the granting of straight probation or even
probation upon condition of a minimal term served in the county jail.
But after the door is closed, as you well know, society forgets about
that man and it is possible to do some enlightened things with respect
to him, if legislation in that direction were drafted.
yir. Hughes. I wonder, Congressman Wiggins, if I could file a
statement later with the committee, including our parole reform
bill in Xew Jersey, and the rationale behind it. I know there is a study.
I would be more informed then than I am now.
]Mr. WiGGixs. It would be most helpful to the committee and me if
you would do so.
As you know. Congress is confronted now with the specter of man-
datory sentences in three areas. One is certain Federal crimes com-
mitted with a gun, another is drugs, trafficking particularly in the
heroin-morphine field, and finally in the hijacking field, all very emo-
tional crimes. Recommendations for punishment which have been de-
scribed as mandatory sentences, but in fact are not actually that, are
now pending before the Cono-ress.
Your observation concerning this matter will be helpful to me and
to the committee.
Mr. Hughes. W^e will file a later statement and file it very quickly,
because I know the committee is well on the way to finishing its work.
[The statement mentioned above will be found at the end of Mr.
Hughes' testimony.]
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Winn.
Mr. Winn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have only one question that has bothered me for quite some time,
and that is the selection of probation officers. Do you have an idea of
what percentage of probation officers really care, and are dedicated ?
Mr. Hughes. My experience with probation officers in my own State,
as a judge for 10 years, has been good. Thej^ are dedicated people in the
main. I tried to get the New Jersey legislature to give me money for the
creation of a system of paraprofessional probation officers, in which
event, instead of a juvenile offender who had to be watched, say, in
the central Avard of Newark, on f>robation, instead of going down to
the courthouse and seeing some crewcut, college-type probation of-
ficer and exchanging a few words with him — that is a bad word these
days
Mr. AViggins. You are dating yourself when you talk about crew-
cut, college types.
Mr. Hughes. That is right. Instead of that, the paraprofessional
may be a rehabilitated otfender or someone from the offender's inner-
city community and thus a store-front probation officer, where he would
know what that boy was doing with his family, or whether he was
getting into bad company and so forth. This kind of sympathetic and
intensive contact and supervision would be the system.
As to the specific question. Congressman, I would like to ask Dan
Skoler or Mr. Ford to answer.
952
Mr. Ford, Mr. Chairman and Congressmen. My viewpoint has been
as a volunteer parole officer, seeing parole officers and probation of-
ficers in action in the State of Illinois, primarily. We found that
there is a great diversity, of course, in the way they go about their
task, but I think for the most part they do seem to really have a signi-
ficant concern for what they are doing.
This seemed to be true of both the older and less apt to be profes-
sionally trained men who have been in the system for a long time, and
of our younger ones just coming out of college and graduate school.
Mr. Winn. Are there any kind of training courses for those older
ones that sort of have a job by the grandfather t^^pe of thing because
of their age and experience ?
Mr. Hughes. There are inservice courses. The chief probation of-
ficer in the county in which I sat for many years is a man named Simon
J. Falsey, and he has not the college education and so forth. He is the
type of older practitioner you mentioned. I believe that if I were to go
back on the records, I could find hundreds of people whom that man
saved from yeai-s in jail by guiding them as chief probation officer.
I would turn a prettv bad kid loose with him on probation, with
reluctance, and fi years later lie would walk in, would be a Marine, be
married, and fullv rehabilitated. This was a great, dedicated but fairly
uneducated probation officer. So it depends on what is in the heart as
much as what is in the head.
Mr. Winn. I agi-ee with you and that is v,'hy I think that some of
them do have it in the heart and some don't have it in the heart, and
some of them find the easy way out.
I have not been exposed to too many, but just enough to make me
wonder about some of the types of personalities that we have, and
wonder, really, if they care enough about individuals in general to
spend the time that is probably necessary.
It seems to me more prevalent nowadays to spend more time with
the individuals and listen to their problems and talk to them than the
so-called old daj-s, or crewcut days. I don't think too many of them
made the home visits that were very necessary and they really didn't
find out what may ha\'e— not always — what might have been the basic
problem for the behavior of the offender.
Mr. Ford. If I could add, I would suggest that some of what might
appear to be a lack of concern at times may just be a result of the layer
of cvnicism that seems to come out on top, because of having caseloads
of 200 and 300 people.
JNIr. Winn. My next question : I think it is pretty obvious in some
parts of the country the caseload is too much for certain individuals
to handle. I don't think there is any doubt about that.
Mr. Ford, what would be your answer — other than money. Don't
just sav money, because we hear that like a broken record up here.
What else ?
Mr. Ford. You seem to be kind of leading into what we are all about
and that is volunteers. I am at the moment working with just getting
lawyers to get involved in any type of correctional activity. One of our
projects that the Governor has mentioned is the National Volunteers
in Parole program. We have tried to match volunteer, 1-to-l, with
felons coming out of institutions and in some cases, probationers, too.
In Missouri, in particular, I believe they were with probationers.
953
But I think people resource is the answer. And if you can get people
resource without money, or with less monej^, I think that is the best
solution.
Mr. Winn. Of course, if you get peoj^le resource with practically
no money, you have the people.
INIr. Ford. Right, correct.
Mr. Winn. We have the people in the country ; whether we have the
people with the heart or not, as my colleague from California brings
out, is another thing, "\\1ien we are voting bonds for correctional in-
stitutions, all of a sudden, even including schools these days, the pub-
lic falls on its face.
Mr. Hughes. This probation officer business, though, Congressman,
is a little different, because if W'e mention the word "money," if you
are spending $500 a year for worthwhile, 30-caseload-type probation
supervision, and you are keeping a man out of the New Jersey State
prison, where, considering his upkeep and maintenance and his family
on welfare and the loss to the national product, you are saving $10,000-
plus a year.
That is where the money is. If somebody could get that message over
to the American public, somebody like this comniittee, by putting in
this dollar we are going to save $10, that would be an enormous con-
tribution.
We could begin saving it right away, because there are people in New
Jersey State prison institutions now that ought to be out in the street
on parole.
ISIr. Winn. I think your point is well made and, of course, there are
lots of us in Government that wish people would look at certain things
this way and in these directions, but I am afraid this is one of those
touffh things to sell because it reallv doesn't have much to do with the
check they see that they bring home and the money they have in their
billfold.
Mr. Ford, I have long been associated, just in youth work, as a Boy
Scout master, a Cub Scout master, and fraternity adviser in college
for 15 years, and I tried and tried and tried, really, with little suc-
cess, but I can see the results and there were good guys. These were
the good young men from middle- to high-income areas that were im-
pressed with the time, if we could ever get it from them, from athletes
or people wdiose names and pictures are in the press every daj'. Or fre-
quently, that they recognize, with name identification.
But you have to almost tackle some of those guys to bring them in
to get them to spend 10 or 15 minutes with w^hatever the youth group
might be. These are the same people, that many of them — and I have
used this when talking to them — started in some areas, started in high
crime rate areas. And I say, "You know what I am talking about; now
if you wdll come talk to some of these fellows, spend an hour with them,
tell them about your experiences as a champion miler or ail-American
basketball player — but there is the people powder you referred to, but,
boy, it is like pulling teeth to get them.
Mr. Lynch. ]Mr. Chainnan, if I might interrupt for a moment,
please.
Mr. Wiggins indicated Governor Hughes brings a special back-
ground and experience to the committee, and T tliink it ought to be
pointed out that the same is true of his staff direftoi-. Mr. Skoler. And
95-158 — 73 — pt. 2 21
954
for the information of the committee, I would like to tell you very
briefly somethino- about Mr. Skoler.
He attended the University of Chicago, is a graduate of Harvard
Law School. He was the gentleman whom Judge Arthur described as
the man who took the National Juvenile Cburt Judges Association
out of the bush league. He served as executive assistant in the pilot
Office of Criminal Justice at the U.S. Department of Justice under
Attorney General Katzenbach. He was the Associate Director of the
Office of Law Enforcement Assistance, along with Courtney Evans,
and was Director of the Office of Law Enforcement Programs for the
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
In that capacity, he practically single-handedly drafted all Federal
guidelines for Federal assistance to police, court, and correctional
agencies.
He has been a prestigious and prolific worker in the criminal justice
impi'ovement field. I think he is in a unique position to indicate to the
committee what areas of correctional w^ork need Federal assistance.
Chairman Pepper. Have you finished, Mr. "VVinn ?
Mr. Winn. I just want to say, Mr, Chairman, I appreciate these
gentlemen appearing before the committee. You and I should be
embai-rassed because your State and my State are not listed in the
brochure here. So it looks like we have some homework to do ourselves.
Thank jou , Mr. Chai rman .
Chairman Pepper. Well, I would like to say, Governor, I share your
view that it is not only the right but the duty of the courts to protect
the constitutional rights of people who are incarcerated in penal
institutions. In addition to that, it does stir the political and civic
leadership to action, to have the courts initiate reform, initiate require-
ments. I think we gradually have been seeing more and more of that,
not only cases dealing directly with the prison population, but I
remember it hasn't been so many years ago the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals in an opinion written by my former law partner, Judge
Waller, recognized that State prisoners under the Constitution are
entitled to protection of their civil rights; and the courts began to
move against brutality and against abuse, with respect to State offi-
cei-s who had custody of prisoners.
Then, of course, the courts have ruled in many other areas : Civil
rights, voting rights, school requirements, school desegregation, elim-
ination, and the like.
Now, we all realize, of course, that the rule of reason applies to
almost anybody, including the courts. I am sure the courts will not in
general allow themselves to intrude their authority into every act of
administration in a penal institution. That would be frustrating to
any kind of effective operation.
But if civil authorities are not going to provide protection of a
decent sort for those people, then I see no alternative but to have the
court come in and do it.
We cited in this committee's tentative draft of a report on correc-
tional institutions one of the most horrible cases of where a young man
was brought into a cell where several other older men were confined and
that young man was immediately sexually attacked and brutally
abused. When they finished with him and left him bloody and uii-
955
conscious and bruised and battered, they went back to playing domi-
noes nearby.
It -would seem to me that a young man who was being sentenced to
a State prison like Eaiford, or Attica, or some of these others, that I
think are a shame to the penal system of this country, would almost
have a justifiable right to an injunction from a court based upon
past experiences of young men in these penal institutions.
Now, lie is liable to incarceration, but I don't think he is liable to be
thrown in where ho will be brutalized, as so many are when they are
incarcerated in these institutions.
We have statistics that are recited by the President and other
officials, most of them police departments, that the rate of increase
in crime is diminishing, except in certain areas of violent crime — •
murder, homicide, and forcible rape. Generally, those offenses seem
to be increasing perceptively, rather than decreasing. But the prob-
lem is, where do we go from here, what can we do now ? This committee
is going to make recommendations to the House of Representatives.
^We hope we may have a measure of impact upon public opinion. We
hope we will be able to send our recommendations and, in fact, our
hearings to large numbers of people in this country, who will find
something of importance in them, something stimulating to help them
in trying to do something about the present system.
But in a summary way, what would you and Mr. Skoler and Mr.
Ford say should be done today? What kind of a program could the
Congress inaugurate that would have some reasonable hope of im-
proving the present situation, and reducing crime in this country.
I think we all agree there is an intolerable amount of violent and seri-
ous crime prevalent in this country.
Mr. Hughes. That is a very broad question, but I would say, just
f»s a "for instance", there is legislation pending in Congress to create
divei-sionary programs in every Federal district where an early
offender or first offender, with the approval of the U.S. attorney and
defense counsel and the court, be put under some other track than being
sent out to a Federal prison or Federal reformatory.
He w-ould get manpower training or vocational training. He would
be tried out for a period of 6 months to see if he could organize his life.
The success rate of such diversionary programs on the State basis are
remarkable. The one in our State, the Hudson Tri-County Interven-
tion project, is more than 60 percent successful.
Mr. WiGGixs. Would those diversionary programs be in lieu of pros-
ecution, or after prosecution and in lieu of sentence ?
Mr. Hughes. They would be in lieu of prosecution. They would be
predicated upon voluntariness on the part of the prisoner and the
waiver of his right to speedy trial, so if perchance he failed on his ex-
perience. 6 months hence the prosecution could go forward.
Mr. WiGGixs. Could it really go forward ?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, it can go forw^ard, because of limitation of time.
The time in New Jersey on our court roll is 3 months plus 3 months.
After tliat. the court has to make a decision.
Mr. Wiggins. I don't understand the 3 months.
Mr. Hughes. The program can take an early offender for 3 months,
get him back to school or get him working back at his job, get him on
956
methadone or urinalysis, get him off drugs, and so forth. Then they
come back to the court and say this man is working out fine. He has
got a job at Westinghouse. He is back with his family. We think he
ought not be prosecuted for stealing this car. If the court concurs that
man doesn't have that criminal record to follow him the rest of his life.
In other words, the State is taking a chance on him.
Mr. Wiggins. It amounts to statutory requirement for review of the
effectiveness of th*^ ])rogram for this particular individual ?
Mr. Hughes. By the court.
Mr. WiGGixs. Within 3 months ?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, and if they need more time they can come back
for an extra o months, but that is all.
In Senator Burdiek's bill, unfortunately, the money involved only
would provide $45,000 for each Federal district. This is nowhere near
enough money to handle that kind of program. Besides that, it is a very
good bill.
Chairman Pepper. Governor, we had hearings a few months ago in
Chicago on the problem of drugs in schools. We were told there about
a program the prosecuting attorney has in Chicago similar to the one
you descril)ed, wliere he brings in these people charged with crime and
he has seminars on Saturday mornings with them and their families,
and they are sort of put on probation, as it were, over a reasonable pe-
riod of time before charges are formally brought against them, where
the offenses are not too serious.
I think all of us agree that we ought to improve the present cor-
rectional system and I was glad to see the estimate you ga^^e there, that
if we could reform the correctional system we probably would reduce
crime about 50 percent in this country.
We take Florida. We have that big old prison in the rural area that
is Eaiford. And a few times, the Raiford administrators have made
an appeal to the courts, "Don't send any more people here because we
don't have room for them." The Governor has indicated he wants to
get rid of that institution. But I suppose he has the same financial
problem that all of the other Governors in the country have of find-
ing the money.
We heard here yesterday and the day before, what I reo;ard as this
very commendable program for dealing with youth delinquents in
Massachusetts, which was inaugurated by Dr. Miller, who appeared
here and testified. What was done with a $2 million grant from the
LEAA. In other words, that was Federal money that enabled them to
initiate this new program, which I think is very innovative.
Would you think it might be developed for the Federal Government
to offer to put up, let's say, 50 percent of the cost of innovative and
improved programs by the States that would lead probably to the
reduction in crime, anci also the reduction in the cost of maintaining
these institutions?
That woidrhi't nocp'ssarilv moan a commitment on the part of the
Government to continue after these new programs became operational.
Presumably the State would be able to carry them.
But what would you think about a recommendation that the Ffderal
Government, being satisfied that the programs are generally lesir-
able and would be properly useful, encouraging the States te- hiau-
957
gurate these reforms by proposing to bear a certain percentage? I
should sa}^ it would be 50 pecent of the cost.
Mr. Hughes. I would regard it as a much Aviser national investment
than the supplying, for instance, of police armor. That thing isn't
working, but this other idea you suggest can work. However, the States
have to be brought along by the Federal inducement. I would con-
sider it an excellent idea.
Chairman Pepper. Now, I think we generally agree that knowledge-
able people seem to agree that the institutions should be located in
the large centers as much as possible, so that the inmate would be
near his family and friends ; and should be small in size, not exceeding
300 in population. What would you say would be the kind of institution,
assuming that one has to be incarcerated a part of the time at least,
we should try to build ?
Mr. Skoler. Smaller institutions of the size you indicated are a wise
investment and are terribly important. They avoid the explosiveness
of a large, overcrowded prison. There is evidence, and this is sup-
ported by Bureau of Prisons studies, that an institution of about 350
could still be cost effective, even if it is a fairly secure institution. It
permits all of the humanization, it links offenders with the outside,
work release, educational programs, the ability to "pierce that wall"
that is much harder with the larger institution.
Chairman Pepper. The Governor was speaking a few weeks ago
about dollar use of medical care. But medical attention is available in
the cities which is not available in Eaiford, Fla., for all of those people.
In addition to that, when they get out there would be jobs around the
city to be available for them, and people to visit them, and the like. Of
course, it costs money to set up those new institutions in lieu of the ones
we now have.
But if we can develop these preincarceration prol)ation programs,
that would be cheaper, assuming we could make them effective.
Mr. Skoler. That is correct. And it is really in a combination of these
approaches that you can achieve cost effectiveness. There must be sonie
rebuilding, but ii one can plan on smaller populations in prisons with
heavier reliance on the preincarceration programs, the staggering cost
of replacing the current prison plant can be miticrated. So it probably
is a mixture of abandoning destructive, impossible prison plants, of
emphasizing the community programs that have been discussed here
today, and of enriching the rehabilitative factors in corrections, edu-
cation, the ability to get a job, areas on which we have a great deal of
technology- that will provide the answer. This Nation knows or should
know a great deal about manpower programs. There is no reason why
that expertise need be developed separately within a correctional facil-
ity. The extent to which you are operating Avith offenders in the com-
munity permits you to tap the normal community resources available
for job problems, educational problems, et cetera. There, too, one can
achieve cost-effective results.
The area of medicine, for example, can be cited. Just yesterday,
I was visiting with the new, very large Johnson Foundation in Prince-
ton, N.J.. where the role of the medical college in providing not merely
inexpensive medical care to the metropolitan jail, but quality medical
care, was discussed in detail as not having been fully tapped.
958
Chairman Pepper. Governor, several members of this committee
and I went up to Attica, on Friday, following the tragedy earlier in
the week there. Before we went to Attica we had a conference with
Governor Rockefeller in New York. And right away he said, "Yes,
nobody l-niows more than I that we need prison reform in New York,
that our correctional institutions are by and large out of date, and
that they are not conducive to rehabilitation." But one of the State
senators was there, chairman of the crime committee of the State
senate, I think Senator Dunn. The Governor said, "But it would cost
SlOO million to reform the penal system of this State. What do you
think. Senator?" Senator Dunn replied : "Probably it would cost near-
ly $200 million." He said, "There j^ou are, we are already under deficit
status here financiall3\ Where are we going to get the money to do
that?"
Ajid, of course, Attica goes on. ]Maybe there have been some reforms
there, but Attica goes on for that reason.
I thought maybe if the State and Governor Eockefeller had financial
l^roblems in New York, a lot of other States have even more serious
problems financially. I thought the Federal Government, in the in-
terests of curbing crime should help the States with the cost of
caring for incarcerated people. As a matter of fact, this comm.ittee
was influential to a degree in getting an amendment to the LEA A bill.
Some time ago, it provided that 25 percent of LEAA fimds were sup-
posed to be spent on correctional institutions. I don't know whether
that is being clone or not. I hope so, because Congress recognized that
this was in the interest of curbing crime.
Mr. Hughes. I think Go\ernor Rockefeller — and any other Gov-
ernor or legislator — has to weigh that $100 million against the several
hxundred lives that are going to be lost in Manhattan this coming year
from people being murdered in subways : and it is just the street crime^
their street crime, we are talking about. That choice has to be portrayed
to the people.
Chairman Pepper. Governor, we were intrigued by Judge Leenhouts.
Do you have any practical suggestion as to how Congress could en-
courage and aid that volunteers-in-probation program, making it sort
of analogous to the Peace Corp in some way ? You know we do put
up money for the Peace Corp, although it is a lot of sacrifice on the
people who serve. Have you any suggestions as to how Congress could
help that program ?
Mr. Hughes. I think you could lielp by a type of probation subsidy
modified, of course, from the California experience. If it is a national
problem and the national objectives of cutting crime in half is to be
achieved, it certainly is as important as anything before the Congress,
even if it does cost money. In the long iim. it will save money, plus
lives, plus our society, which is really in danger. It is at the point in
the major cities in my State where no one would think of walking
down Main Street of a town after dark. And this com.mittee is involved
in, I think, one of the most important questions in this country — a
question of survival.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Mann, do you have further questions?
]Mr. Manx. Yes.
Governor, what consideration has been given to expunging in con-
nection with employment as well as permanent rehabilitation?
959
Mr. Hughes. I am sure the Burdiok hearings, the Senate Subcom-
mittee on National Penitentiaries, discussed expungement, but I am
sorry I am not familiar with the legislation pending in Congress.
Mr. Skoler. There was some legislation in the last Congress and I
believe the bill introduced by Senator Burdick attacked that problem —
S. 2732, 92d Congress, the Offender Rehabilitation Act. It provided for
a reasonable waiting period before there was to be expungement. I
don't think there was much action on it.
Mr. Hughes. We will do a little checking on that.
Mr. Maxn. As a lawyer, you will be interested in knowing the
Special Subcommittee of the House Judiciary, of which I am a mem-
ber, is working on the Federal Code of Evidence promulgated by the
Supreme Court. The section that we are considering this week and
after the recess, involves the attack upon the credibility upon the wit-
ness who takes the stand in court with reference to his criminal record.
Some very difficult problems confront us in that connection. And it
ties in, of course, with what may ultimately be done with reference to
pardon, expungement, and the like.
One assertion I want to make. We have talked here about diversion
and preincarceration probation, and I recognize clearly you feel this
is one of the greatest solutions of the problem of corrections. But I
am wondering — and I may be expressing a South Carolina deficiency
when I make this assertion — in South Carolina we have no presentence
investigation. The probation officers have the same caseload problem
they liave in most places, but they have the additional caseload problem
of not doing presentence investigations at all. A judge can specilically
request one, which he might do once every montli or so. but judges have
a pretty high regard for their own understanding of human nature,
and they tend to sentence without enough information.
I agree with ]Mr. Wiggin's implications that maybe the final de-
termination of the sentence at this point is not the best time. So I would
suggest that the American Bar Association, representing the lawyers
in the administration of justice, could well jawbone the heck out of the
States on this question of presentence investigation, so as to be of as-
sistance to the judge in the first instance. Because if he is going to
employ — and we are talking about most sophisticated pretrial things
when we are talking about the diversion sj^stem you described a mo-
ment ago — but if he is going to be able to employ the sentencing alter-
natives that you envision there is going to have to be a basic presentenc-
ing agency and it needs to be there now, with just the sentencing alter-
natives we now have, jail or probation.
I think too little attention is being given to that problem, as opposed
to the postsentencing procedure and probation, for example, as well
as to parole.
I feel deficient myself in not having jawboned it more in South
Carolina.
Mr. Hughes. You have a lot of good things in South Carolina, in-
cluding the Austin Wilkes Visiting Association.
We recommend pretrial sentencing reports be mandatory.
As a matter of fact, if I had it my way, no judge would ever have
jurisdiction to send a juvenile or adult to any institutions that he
personally had not inspected within the previous 18 months. Many
judges think about numbers too much and quite often a great injustice
960
comes when a young boy is sent into the circumstances that Mr. Pep-
per just mentioned. It is a terrible thing on the conscience of society.
Mr. Mann. Tliank you.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Lynch, would you like to inquire ?
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
Governor, I know you have another commitment, and I will try to
make this brief.
We heard a long line of witnesses this week, Governor Hughes,
indicate to us there was no question in their judgment in regards to
the juvenile system that juveniles did at least as well if not better
in various kinds of controlled type of probation programs than in
prisons, jails, or other detention institutions.
Would the same hold true in your judgment for adults ?
Mr. Hughes. Yes. There is a hard core of antisocial adult crimi-
nals, mostly violent people, who need to be separated from society.
But in the main, I %¥0uld consider that, say, a decent man who em-
bezzled $1,800 from his employer because his wife has to go to the
hospital, and wliose friends make restitution, doesn't belong in prison.
And yet he is frequently in a prison, bumping into all kinds of bad
people. He ought to be on probation.
Mr. Lynch. Would it be your judgment. Governor, that kind of
treatment in fact is criminogenic, rather than rehabilitative?
Mr. HufiHES. I believe strongly in probation. Given a wise judge
supervising an intelligent, dedicated probation officer, I think that
probation is rehabilitative in the highest sense.
Mr. Lynch. We have several witnesses who indicated, they were
in favor of centralizing correctional authorities within States. Plas
your commission taken any position with regard to placing correc-
tion departments directly under the executive and under the control
of one man, including adult/ juvenile institutions, adult/ juvenile pro-
bation, aftercare services, and the like ?
Mr. Hughes. Let me refer that to Dan Skoler. Do you mean
regionalization ?
Mr. Lynch. Xo. Creating a State department of corrections with
authority to supervise the entire correctional system within a State.
Mr. Skoler. I don't think the commission or our association has
taken a formal position, but we have in our various projects recom-
mended to the public a number of model statutes that call for a unified
department of corrections. We have in mind here the terrible burden
on the State chief executive, the Governor, with tlie proliferation of
governmental departments. We have in mind the fact that juvenile
and adult corrections over the years have come much more closely
together. The rehabilitative approach originally came out of the con-
cept of how we deal with juveniles, but more and more we are recog-
nizing that the human needs of the offender, his needs for education
and trainiT-ig. anply to him as an adult as well as a juvenile.
T ;hinl' it is f ar to say tliat our view of .<^',ood reform practice does
call of the unified correctional system with clear standards of per-
formarice and with clear accountability and differentiation within a
system on a problem basis. If there are some aspects in which juvenile
programs should be enriched, that could take place as well in the
unified department as in fractionalized departments where there may
961
be competition for budget funds, different standards of quality and
i^ersonnel, and the like.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Skoler, during the Governor's statement, he indi-
cated one of the needs in the correctional system was for a clearing-
house operation, so that information on new programs and the like
could be disseminated. Your commission, I believe, recentl}' published
a compendium of model correctional legislation. Could you tell us a
bit about that, and to whom that publication was sent?
]Mr. Hughes. Mr. Lynch, excuse me.
I wonder if I could be excused by the committee with my thanks to
all of you ? I hate to do this, but my time is up and I must return to
New Jersey.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much. Governor, for coming.
We want to commend you and the American Bar Association for the
manifestation of the greatness you have in this development. Thank
you.
Mr. Hughes. You are most welcome. We will remain in touch with
you, sir.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Skoler.
Mr. Skoler. Our compendium gathers in one place all of the model
legislation and all of the standards — the formal legislative standards
and standards of administration relating to correctional practices —
that have been developed by responsible associations, not individuals,
but in the course of careful study efforts. Thus, it would include the
model statutes of the National Council of Crime and Delinquency, the
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, the American
Law Institute, and the American Bar Association's own Criminal
Justice Standards. As you know, the ABA standards do relate to
corrections in some aspects; for example, with respect to sentencing
and probation.
We include also the American Correctional Association standards
of good practice. Times have changed and some of these are a bit
outmoded. But the compendium of Model Correctional Legislation
and Standards does gather in one spot the best reform thinking and
legislative milestones that we have with respect to improvement of
corrections.
Mr. Lynch. I wonder if I could ask you what your judgment would
be as to the adequacy of the State comprehensive law-enforcement
plans, insofar as corrections are concerned? It is my understanding
that the 1970 amendment, part E, to the 1968 act, requires in essence
separate State plans for corrections. Plas your commission had occa-
sion to examine those, and if so, how adequate are they?
Mr. Skoler. We really haven't had a chance to look closely at the
separate plans for corrections. It has seemed to us that the State
planning agencies, as they are called under the Omnilius Crime Con-
trol and Safe Streets Act, do have an understanding and sense of the
importance of correctional reform and balances in the expenditure of
overall crime control fimds.
We have some concern because it is hard to pierce through plan
provisions to determine how much is rhetoric and how much is actually
implemented. Congressman Wiggins spoke alx>ut the balancing of
many money demands among tlie goals that are stated in the plans.
962
and they generally read pretty well. There is no opposition to work re-
lease, to expanded probation, to diversion programs, and to more
humane conditions in prisons. The extent to which dollars are actually
flowing through the block grants into correctional agencies and to
match some of those program goals is difficult to trace.
I think this is a large problem for the Nation and will remain such
until the information system to track LEAA and crime control ex-
penditures picks up some more thoroughness and ability to identify
what is happening.
It is not so much lack of plans or poor plans we have concern about
as what is actually happening in the correctional systems.
Mr. Lynch. To what extent are we able to track that now? "V\'lio
should be doing the tracking ; an independent commission like yours,
should it be LEAA; how can we find out whether there is a difference
between rhetoric and practice ?
Mr, Skoler. It was my understanding LEAA was developing an
information system to keep track of the end result of the now increas-
ing investment in crime control funds. I for one would be quite content
to rely on this system to tell us the baseline data. An organization like
ours can focus on a particular need — model legislation, pretrial diver-
sion techniques, volunteer techniques — and perhaps get more specific
information in that area for the general use of the Nation.
I think with the current trend toward local decisionmaking, re-
flected in the revenue-sharing approach, with the notion that localities
have not only the right but the capacity to analyze and deal with their
own problems, that the need for accurate national information and
clearinghouse data becomes one that requires increasing Federal
attention.
It is difficult to make a good decision in Kansas about spending a
lot of money on a new innovation if you have to go through exactly
the same kind of research 49 other States have done on what has hap-
])ened. As a complement to criminal justice planning and decision-
making in localities, it seems to me there is great need for increased
investment in really good and thorough tracking, clearinghouse, and
data accumulation at the national level. These are not expensive pro-
grams. It is the direct program expenditures and subsidies that cost
billions. But I think you will find, for instance, that technical assist-
ance budgets and the LEAA contracts for information clearinghouses
are only a fraction of Avhat is being spent in the area of education or
manpower or the investment in other data banks.
Yet, it is terribly important, if local and State governments are to
make good decisions, that now more than ever they must have reliable,
critical information and perspectives behind the rhetoric of criminal
justice — whether it be i^olice, court, or correctional improvement.
Mr. Lynch. I think that is a very valuable observation.
Thank you. I have no further questions.
Chairman Pepper. ]Mr. McDonald.
Mr. McDonald. I have one question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Skoler, as you know, disparity and severity of prison sentences
of those incarcerated is a major source and cause of prison unrest to-
day. Daily we have an example of severity in sentencing. We read in
the papers of certain individuals who have been convicted of what
might be called white-collar crime, a victimless crime, which in fact
963
most likely the victims are untold at tliis point. "We sec very stiff jail
sentences beinsf meted out to these individuals, and at the same time,
vre see criminals or individuals beincf convicted of violent crimes, in-
cludino; murder, rape, robbery, what have you, beino- triven actually
lesser sentences when we compare the lengths of time. Could j^ou com-
ment on this for the committee ?
^Ir. Skoler. Disparity in sentencing is a difficult problem and its
effect can be destructive. The American Bar Association has standards
on sentencinn: alternatives and appellate reviews of sentences that do
address the problem. They provide techniques through such devices
as judicial conferences and sentence appeals, which take the edge off
extreme and unfair disparity. At the same time, the standards of the
American Bar Association with respect to sentencing and, I think,
tliose incorporated in other model legislation, such as the "Model Penal
Code" of the American Law Institute and the National Council on
Crime & Delinquency's "Model Sentencing Act," take an overall ap-
]^roach with respect to length of sentences which I personally think is
sound. This is something our commission has not yet taken a detailed
stand on, but it does reflect the overall policy of the American Bar
Association which has an even broader base. Sentences in this country
are generally too long and ought to be shorter. The common norm of
5 years is mentioned in these standards as the maximum prison term
for m.ost offenses. When you get the dangerous or repeated offender, a
different mode of handling can go into operation, permitting the
longer sentence that will provide society the protection it needs.
Part of the mess we have had in sentencing may have been a lack
of this differentiation, so that sentencing based solely on a crime con-
fronts the court with the dilemmas at the point of sentencing as Con-
gressman Wiggins mentioned — placing the early offender, simply
because he has committed the same crime, in the same position perhaps
as the repeated offender. We are beo-inning to get a pretty good idea of
who is a dangerous man and should have a procedure to handle him
differently.
So I would say Ave are behind the o-eneral notion of shorter sentences
and a special procedure permitting longer sentences for the dangerous
offender, for the man who has repeated and shown time and again he
is not a safe risk for the community.
Mr. McDoxALD. Should we sentence individuals who have com-
mitted victimless crime:3, white-collar crimes? Should they be placed
in jail at all, if perfectly capal^le of gottin.fr along with society?
Mr. Skoler. Your question is a difficult one and presents great
dilemmas. It would hardly be necessary for me to point out the impli-
cations of a position that holds that the "safe" offender, the public
official who grossly abuses the public trust, the labor union leader who
also does this, ought not to receive some kind of confinement or punish-
ment simply because we know he is not a dangerous or violent man.
This dilemma, of course, does not apply to the overwhelming body of
criminal offenders. It is a difficult case, and my personal view is that
society might very well establish special priorities for equal justice
that would call for severe measures of punishment in these cases. This
would be to show that the hio;h placed as well as the low, when they
engage in illegal activities, must pay regardless of the strict factor that
the person would be a safe bet on probation and the like.
964
Mr. ]\IcI)oxALD. Thank you very much, Mr. Skoler.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Nokle.
Mr. NoLDE. Eegarding the issue of what kind of offender should be
locked up and what kind should be given one of the alternative forms,
such as probation diversion, have you covered basically the kind of
offenders that you feel should be locked up ?
Mr. Skoler. Generally, it would be the violent offender who pre-
sents tlie immediate problem of safetv to society who would be the
normal candidate for incarceration. There has been a finding, and
this is reflected in the standards I spoke of, that the straight "habitual
offender" statute has not been successful in isolating truly dangerous
criminals. The test in defining the dangerous offender who can receive
a larger sentence should not be merely based on the numerical record
of crimes, but on judgments as to his danger and threat to the
personal safety of the public.
To say that those who commit property crimes should in no case
receive a sentence of incarceration may not be necessary. But it cer-
tainly seems that we can give free play to our notions of rehabilitation,
of dealing with the offender in the community, and of trying to meet
his deficiencies as a person with a somewhat safer feeling if he is the
perpetrator of property rather than violent crime. There is less risk
to society in pursuing our knowledge as to getting at the root causes
of why a person resorts to criminal activity and in preparing him to
function productively in the community.
Mr. NoLDE. Can you give the committee a rough estimate of the per-
centage of offenders that really need to be locked up ?
Mr. Skoler. Being an effort of the American Bar Association, we
tend to be conservative in our estimates. You will find time and again
knowledgeable prison administrators^and these are not necessarily
extremely liberal administrators but someone like the head of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons and a recent director of the California
correctional system who sits on our ABA Corrections Commission —
express the judgment that perhaps as many as three-quarters of the
offenders in prison do not need to be there in terms of the public safety.
We have taken the position in our target setting that reduction in
prison po]:>ulations by a factor of '2b or 50 percent would be in order,
and could be realized by identifying those who most obviously ouglit
not to be in prison and burdening society with the very high cost of
institutional confinement.
Mr. ISToLDE. Without threat to public safety ?
Mr. Skoler. Without threat to public safety.
My. Wiggins. Certainly public safetv is not the only criterion for
putting a person in jail, is it?
Mr. Skoler. That is right. That is why we have not been interested
in emphasizing the estimates that project a potential 75 percent re-
duction to the nth degree. We think quite a bit of progress and tremen-
dous inroads could be made if there were reasonable steps to weed out
a number of people in confinement and iiet tlicm into coinmunitv pro-
grams, based on the perceptions of good solid prison and correctional
administrators and parole decisionmakers. You do reach a point where
965
you start getting into close cases, I think the Governor was trying to
express that you don't have to reach these close cases to shut down
some of the large prisons.
As a matter of fact, there has been since Attica, I think, a very
rather significant develo]^mont in populations of the large prisons.
They are going down, and you will find tliat most }>risons today, the
very large ]3risons, are well below their inmate popidations of a few
years ago.
Mr. XoLDE. Thank you. ]Mr. Skolcr.
I have no further questions. ]Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Well, Mr. Skoler, Mv. Ford, we wish very much
to thank you for coming and giving us this valuable information. We
would like to ha\o the privilege of continuing to keep in touch with
you and perhaps get you to assist in forming recommendations that
Ave will eventually make.
Mr. Skoler. INIr. Chairman, Congressmen, ISIr. Nolde, ?.Ir. Lynch,
Mr. McDonald, we were delighted to have the opportunity.
[The following material, previously referred to, was received for
the record :]
American Bar Association.
Washington, D.C., May 21, 1973.
Hon. Claude Pepper,
Chairman, House Select Committee on Crime,
Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Pepper : A copy of the recent New Jersey parole legislation
(Senate Bill No. 1122. introduced July 17, 1972), which I referred to in my recent
testimony liefore your Committee, is enclosed.
It is unfortunate tliat this bill has thus far been un.successful, for it embodies
our philosophy of encouraging use of probation and parole whenever possible,
in order to talie advantage of the beneficial rehabilitative effects of supervising
offenders in the community.
Consistent with this approach — and in agreement with Congressman Wiggins —
I consider mandatory sentences to be harmful and inappropriate. Further, tliis
view is advocated by the American Bar Association Standards Relating to
Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures [Standards 2.1(c), 2.2, and 2.3(c)],
copies of which are enclosed. Mandatory sentences prevent the judicious use of
administrative discretion so necessary in rehabilitation and could impair the
priority and flexibility for probation, parole and individualized treatment that
we consider so essential to the effective redirection of criminal behavior.
Let me thank you for this opportunity to submit these additional exhibits
and comments for the record.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Hughes, Chairman.
Enclosures.
Excerpts From the American Bar Association Standards Relating to
Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures
2.1 General principles : statutory structure.
( c) The legislature .should not specify a mandatory sentence for any sentencing
category or for any particular offense.
2.2 General principle : judicial discretion.
The sentence imposed in each case should call for the minimum amount of
custody or confinement which is consistent with the protection of the public, the
gravity of the offense and the reliabilitative needs of the defendant.
2.3 Sentences not involving confinement.
(c) A sentence not involving confinement is to be preferred to a sentence
involving partial or total confinement in the absence of affirmative reasons to the
contrary.
966
[S. No. 1122, State of New Jersey, introduced July 17, 1972, by Senator Maraziti]
Referred to Committee on Institutions. Health and Welfare.
An act concerning the sentencing and parole of persons convicted of misde-
meanors or high misdemeanors and amending R. S. 30:4-107, 30:4-108 and P.L.
1948, e. 84, and repealing sections 12 and 14 or P.L. 1948, c. 84.
Be it enacted by the Senate and General Asembly of the State of New Jersey:
1. At the time of sentencing a person convicted of a misdemeanor or a high mis-
demeanor, the court hy whom such person is to be sentenced shall provide a
statement indicating the reason for the specific sentence imposed. Such sentence
may be for a fixed minimum and maximum term ; however, any such minimum
term shall be considered by the parole board as merely advisory in nature. Any
such person so sentenced shall be othei-wise eligible for consideration for parole
in accordance with the other provisions of this amendatory act.
2. R. S. 30 :^107 is amended to read as follows :
30 :4-107. A patient admitted to any institution in this State, other than a
correctional institution, may be paroled or discharged therefrom in accordance
with the rules and regulations prescribed by the board of managers or the board
of chosen freeholders or the proper committee thereof, as the case may be. In
all cases where the patient shall have been transferred to the institution from a
correctional institution he shall [not] be paroled or discharged therefrom m
accordance with the other provisions of this amendatory act [prior to the expira-
tion of the maximum period of detention]. The chief executive officer of any State
institution, other than a correctional institution, subject to regulations of the
[State Board of Control] Department of Institutions and Agencies, may make
arrangements with suitable families for the care, maintenance and treatment
of patients of the institution and may place at boai'd on parole in a family with
whom any such arrangements have been made, any patient for whom family
care may be deemed beneficial. Patients so placed on parole in family care shall
be returned to the institution at any time upon order of the chief executive
officer. Subject to such regulations, provision may be made by the chief execu-
tive officer for payment of the necessary expenses for the board and care of
such patients in a suitable family, over and above the value of any sei^vice
rendered by such patient ; provided, that such net cost shall not exceed the daily
per capita cost of maintaining any such patient within the institution. All such
patients placed in family care shall be and remain patients of the institution until
discharged therefrom as provided for in this chapter.
The legal jurisdiction of the pi'ofessional staff of the hospital over any person
discharged therefrom shall terminate at the time of discharge of the person
from inpatient status. However, upon recommendation of the professional staff
of the hospital, patients so discharged may continue to receive further pro-
fessional services on an outpatient basis or may be assisted in securing continued
treatment from other community resources.
The chief executive officer is empowered to negotiate with the legally responsi-
ble relatives of any such patient for the purpose of securing payment to the
institution or to a suitable family of all or a portion of the net cost of main-
taining such patient in such family placement or providing services on an out-
patient basis after discharge.
3. R.S. 30 :4-108 is amended to read as follows :
30:4-108. Conditions of parole; procedure. The [State board] State Parole
Board shall in accordance with the other provisions of this amendatory act
prescribe by rules formally adopted the tenns, conditions and procedure for
granting a parole and, subject to the provisions of section 30 :4-109 of this Title,
for securing the parolee in proper cases permission to reside without the State.
4. Section .5 of P.L. 1948, c. 84 (C. 30:4-123.-5) is amended to read as follows:
5. It shall be the duty of the [board] State Parole Board to determine when,
and under what conditions, subject to the provisions of this act, and in accord-
ance icith the other provisions of this amendatory act persons now or here-
after serving sentences having fixed minimum and maximum terms or serving
sentences for life, in the several penal and correctional institutions of this
State may be released upon parole.
In addition thereto, the board shall have full and complete jurisdiction over
all persons sentenced to any penal or correctional institution of this State for
minimum and maximum terms who have been paroled by the board of managers
of any penal or correctional institution of this State, for and during the term of
Explanation. — Matter enclosed in brackets [thus] In the above bill is not enacted and is
Intended to be omitted in the law.
967
such parole and pursuant to the terms, conditions and limitations thereof, and
the powers, functions and duties formerly exercised by and conferred upon any
such board of managers for revoking paroles in such cases hereby are continued
and are transferred to, and vested in. said board.
The board shall have such other powers and jurisdictions as are provided in
this act.
5. Section 6 of P.L. 1948, c. 84 (C. 30:4-123.6) is amended to read as follows:
6. The board is empowered and authorized to promulgate reasonable rules and
regulations in accordance with the otlicr provisions of this amendatory act
which shall establish the general conditions under which parole shall be granted
and revoked and shall have authority to adopt special rules to govern particular
cases. Such rules and regulations, both general and special, may include, among
other things, a requirement that the parolee shall not leave the State without
the written consent of the board, that he shall contribute to the support of his
dependents, that he shall make restitution for his crime, that he shall abandon
evil associates and ways, that he shall conduct himself in society in compliance
with the law and with due regard for moral standards, that he shall carry out
the general and special instructions of his parole officer and give evidence of good
conduct at all times and satisfactory proof that he is a fit person to be at libertv.
6. Section 10 of P.L. 1948, c. S4 (C. 30:4-123.10) is amended to read as
follows :
10. [No] Each inmate of a penal or correctional institution serving a sentence
for a fixed minimum and maximum term shall be eligible for consideration for
release on jiarole immediately after commitment and 'being received at such
institution, and shall appear before the parole board ivithin 6 months after being
received by State institutional authorities. Hoivcver, after a prisoner shall have
[until he has] served his minimum sentence or [%] % of his fixed maximum
sentence, less, in each instance, commutation time therefrom for good behavior
and for diligent application to work assignments, whichever occurs sooner, [sub-
ject to the provisions of section 12 hereof.] he shall appear before the parole
board as soon thereafter as conveniently possible and shall be released on parole
unless the parole board shall find that there is a reasonable probability that
release on parole at that time icovld endanger the community with respect to
the safety of persons or the security of property or that the purposes of the
sentence as specifically stated by the sentencing court have not been accom-
plished.
No prisoner shall be released on parole merely as a reward for good conduct
or efficient performance of duties assigned while under sentence, but only if the
board is of the opinion that there is reasonable probability that, if such prisoner
is released, he will assume his proper and rightful place in society, without
violation of the law, and that his release is not compatible with the welfare of
society.
Whenever, after the effective date of this act, tw^o or more sentences to run
consecutively are Imposed at the same time b.v any court of this State upon
any pei-son convicted of crime herein, there shall be deemed to be imposed upon
such person a sentence the minimum of which shall be the total of the minimum
limits of the several sentences so imposed, and the maximum of which shall be
the total of the maximum limits of such sentences. [For purposes of deter-
mining the date upon which such a person shall be eligible for consideration
for release on parole, the board shall consider the minimum sentence of such
person to be the total aggregate of all the minimum limits of such consecutive
sentences and the maximum sentence of such person to be the total aggregate
of all of the maximum limits of such consecutive sentences.]
With regard to consecutive sentences imposed upon prisoners prior to July 3,
1950, and also with regard to consecutive sentences imposed upon prisoners
subsequent to July 3, 1950, by different courts at different times, all such
consecutive sentences, with the consent of the prisoner, may be aggregated by
the board to produce a single sentence, the minimum and maximum of which
shall consist of the total of the minima and maxima of such consecutive sen-
tences. [Such aggregation shall be for the puriiose of establishing the date upon
which such prisoner shall be eligible for consideration for release on parole.]
When any such prisoner is released on parole the period of his supervision
under parole shall be measured by the aggregated maxima of his consecutive
sentences.
Notwithstanding any of the other provi.sions of this act, whenever it shall
appear that the date upon which a prisoner shall be eligible for consideration
968
for release on parole occurs later than the date upon which he would be so
eligible if a life sentence had been imposed upon him, then, and in such case,
he shall be deemed eligible for consideration for release on parole after having
served 25 years of his sentence, or sentences, less commutation time for good
behavior and time credits earned and allowed by reason of diligent application
to \Voi"k assignments.
7. Section 24 of P.L. 1948, c. 84 (C. 30:4-123.24) is amended to read as
follows :
24. A prisoner, whose parole has been revoked because of a violation of a
condition of parole or commission of an oifense which subsequently results in
conviction of a crime committed while on parole, even though such conviction
be subsequent to the date of revocation of parole, shall be required, unless said
revocation is rescinded, or unless sooner reparoled by the board, to serve the
balance of time due on his sentence to be computed from the date of [his original
release on parole] such violation of condition or commission of offense. If parole
is revoked for reasons Other than subsequent conviction for crime while on
parole then the parolee, unless said revocation is rescinded, or unless sooner
reparoled by the board, shall be required to serve the balance of time due on
his sentence to be computed as of the date that he was declared delinquent
on pai'ole.
8. Section 12 of P. L. 1948, c. 84 (C. 30:4-123.12) and section 14 of P. L. 1948,
c. 84 (C. 30 :4-123.14) are repealed.
9. The parole eligibility and qualifications of those inmates who, prior to the
effective date of this act, have received "fixed" minimum or maximum sentences
or who are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the parole board on said effec-
tive date shall be governed by this act, provided however that those inmates
who are immediately eligible for hearing or rehearing shall be considered by
the board and decision rendered within 1 year from the effective date hereof.
The parole board may adopt such regulations and procedures as may be neces-
sary to implement this act which are consistent with due process of law.
10. This act shall take effect 60 days after enactment.
Chairman Pepper. I tliink this has been a very good week. I want
to commend the stall on this week's hearin<i;s, as well as last week's,
they have been very helpful. I hope these hearings will prove profitable
toward curbing crime in this country.
We will adjourn until 10 o'clock the morning of Maj' 1.
[Whereupon at 1 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene
at 10 a.m.. Tuesday, May 1, 1973, in room 1302, Longworth Plouse
Office Building.]
O
fREET CRIME IN AMERICA
(PROSECUTION AND COURT
INNOVATIONS)
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON CRIME
HOUSE OF REPEESENTATIVE8
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
APRIL 9-13, 16-19 ; MAY 1-3, 8, 9, 1973
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Part 3 of 3 Parts
Part 1.— THE POLICE RESPONSE
Part 2.— CORRECTIONS APPROACHES
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Crime
(Created pursuant to H. Kes. 256)
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
95-158 O WASHINGTON : 1973
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Price: $2.35, domestic postpaid; $2.00, GPO Bookstore
Stock No. 5270-01873
.IPgHEASTERN LiniVERSilY SCliOOl of lAW LSr^ARX
SELECT CX3MMITTEE ON CRIME
CLAUDE PEPPER, Florida, Chairman
JEROME R. WALDIE, California CHARLES E. WIGGINS, California
FRANK J. BRASCO, New York SAM STEIGER, Arizona
JAMES R. MANN, South Carolina LARRY WINN, Jr., Kansas
MORGAN F. MURPHY, Illinois CHARLES W. SANDMAN, Jr., New Jersey
CHARLES B. RANGEL, New Yorlc WILLIAM J. KEATING, Ohio
Chris Nolde, Chief Counsel
Richard P. Lynch, Deputy Chief Counsel
James E. McDonald, Assistant Counsel
Robert J. Tbainor, Assistant Counsel
(II)
CJ)
=5
CONTENTS
Dates Hearings Heij)
PART 1. — THE POLICE RESPONSE
Page
April 9, 1973 1
April 10, 1973 95
April 11, 1973 275
April 12, 1973 381
April 13, 1973 559
PART 2. CORRECTIONS APPROACHES
April 16, 1973 647
April 17, 1973 725
April 18, 1973 813
April 19, 1973 9(y7
PART 3. — PROSECUTION AND COURT INNOVATIONS
May 1, 1973 969
May 2, 1973 1075
May 3, 1973 1143
May 8, 1973 1231
May 9, 1973 1279
Statements of Witnesses
Alexandria, Va., U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Hon. Albert V.
Bryan, judge 1201, 1205
Allen, Milton J., State's attorney, Baltimore City, State's attorney's oflSce,
Baltimore, Md 1233
Alprin, Geoffrey M., general counsel, Metropolitan Police Department,
Washington, D.C 324
American Bar Association, Washington. D.C. :
Ford, Robert C, director, activation program for correctional reform 939
Hughes, Richard J., chairman. Commission on Correctional Facilities
and Services 939
Skoler, Daniel J., staff director, Commission on Correctional Facilities
and Services 939
Armstrong. William, sergeant, St. Louis, Mo.. Police Department 423
Arthur, Hon. Lindsay G., judge, District Court, Juvenile Division, Min-
neapolis, Minn 745
Baltimore, Md. :
Allen, Milton B., State's attorney for the city of Baltimore, State's
attorney's office 1233
Gersh, Howard B., chief, violent crimes liaison unit, State's attorney's
office 1233
Moylan, Hon. Charles E., Jr., associate judge. State Court of Special
Appeals 1233,1239
Bannon, James. STRESS unit commander. Detroit, Mich., Police
Department 382, 387
Benfer, Robert A., captain, San Anotion, Tex., Police Department 541, 548
Brand, Richard L., patrolman, Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department 247,250
Brovrn, Arlyn J., director. Community Services Division, Dallas, Tex.,
Police Department 444, 451
(ni)
IV
Page
Brown, Charles E., patrolman, Kansas City, Mo., Police Department 562, 573
Bryan, Hon. Albert V., judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit,
Alexandria, Va 1201, 1205
Busch, Joseph, district attorney, Los Angeles County, Calif 1077, 1089
California, Los Angeles County, Joseph Busch, district attorney 1077, 1089
Callier, Leroy, patrolman. New York City Police Department 6, 18
Camp, Eugene J., chief of police, St. Louis, Mo., Police Department 423
Casey, Hon. Bob, a U.S. Representative from the State of Texas 1077
Cawley, Donald F., chief, Patrol Services, New York City Police
Department 6, 10,41
Chamberlin, John D., sergeant, Chicago (111.) Police Department 276
Chicago (111.) Police Department officials, panel of 276
Chamberlin, John D., sergeant 276
Crosby, Wayne, community service aide 308
Jungheim, Annette K., community service aide 296
Nolan, Samuel W., deputy superintendent 276
Rottman, Herbert. R., lieutenant 287
Churchill, Winston L., chief, Indianapolis (Ind.) Police Department 136
Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department officials, panel of 247
Brand, Richard L., patrolman 250
Espelage, Howard, captain 255
Goodin, Carl V., chief of police 247
Lind, Carl A., director, program management division 254
Panno, Lawrence C, patrolman 251
Conyers, Hon. John, Jr., a U.S. Representative from the State of Michigan- 381
Crosby, Wayne, community service aide, Chicago (111.) Police Department 276, 303
Crowley, Donald F., sergeant, neighborhood patrol team commander. New
York City Police Department 41, 64
Dallas, Tex., Police Department 444
Brown, Arlyn J., director, community services division 451
Heath, Edwin D., Jr., director, criminal justice interface division 444
DeMuro, Paul, assistant commissioner of after care, State department of
youth services, Boston, Mass 649, 674
Detroit, Mich., Police Department officials, panel of 382
iBannon, James, STRESS unit commander 387
Martin, Ronald H., patrolman 389
Nichols, John J., commissioner 382
Ricci, John P., patrolman 394
Eisdorfer, Simon, deputy chief inspector. New York City Police
Department 41, 56
Espelage, Howard, captain, Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department 247,255
Fenley, Thomas T., sergeant, San Antonio, Tex., Police Department 541, 545
Fixsen, Dr. Dean, research associate. Achievement Place Research Project,
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kans 868,870
Florida (Tallahassee) Division of Youth Services, Oliver J. Keller,
director 766
Ford, Robert C, director. Activation Program for Correctional Reform,
American Bar Association, Washington, D.C 939
Freeman, Arthur A., deputy inspector. New York City Police Department 41, 85
Garritani, Carl, patrolman. New York City Police Police Department 6, 17
Gillespie, James, attorney, San Antonio, Tex 1281, 1290
Gersh, Howard B., chief, violent crimes liaison unit, State's attorney's
office, Baltimore, Md 1233
Giarrusso, Clarence B., superintendent, New Orleans, La., Police Depart-
ment 95
Glenn, Robert, patrolman, San Antonio, Tex., Police Department 541, 547
Gonzalez, Hon. Henry B., a U.S. Representative from the State of Texas — 1279
GoodChild, Lester, executive officer. Criminal Court of the City of New
York 1006
Goodin, Carl V., chief of police, Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department 247
Greene, William Robert, captain, homicide and robbery division, Indian-
apolis (Ind.) Police Department 136,143
Halleck, Hon. Charles White, judge, Superior Court of the District of
Columbia 1143
""mTnt ""of T?i^.^ ""■' ^^''^'^^' ^®"^ «^ *^^ ^^-S- Attorney, U.S. Depart-
Page
ment of Justice.:::: ^ "^ ^"" "•"• ^^^«™ey' "^-S- -L^epart-
^Kans ^''" ^''^^'"^' ^^''^^^^' ^*^^^ departm^nroFs'oclal w;rf7re7Top"ek'a'; ^^^^
hS?i; '^^J'^'' p/*Y°'^^°' "^^n;a7cit>7Mo.7p"^^^^^^^^ ^
""^et ^pS 'Deilrtrnr ^' ^^"^^"^^ '"^"^^ ^"^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^-' ^"^"■-
^J?eparti^ent°^:_^i!!?."!^^^^ "^"^"^ ^"""^ ^"^^' ^'^^' "York~"city" PoTice ^
Hughes, Richard 7, c7ah-m7n7c7mmrs7io7on"7o7r;^t7o7a7Fa7ili"tiera"nd ^' ^^
Services, American Bar Association, Washington, D.C qqo
Indianapolis (Ind.) Police Department _ : loa
Churchill, Winston, L., chief :Z:7'7:" 7:: jor
T ^^^.°' ^'il^ia^ Robert, captain, homicide and robbery di7ision : I4q
Isenstadt Paul senior field director. National Assessment of j7v7nrie
Corrections, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich _ eiq
dXectoT''''^ Association, Chicago, 111., Joseph R. Rowan77x7c7tive
Jordan, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Representati7e"fromth7st7t7of Texas: : 107^
Jungheim, Annette K., community service aide, Chicago (111 ) Pol'ice
Department s v .; ^""^e
"^"oivSion^' ^^P^'^"'^"* ^^' 0®^e <>f f^e U.S. Attorn7y7sup7riorCourt
Hamilton, William A -,.,-,^
Work, Charles R., chief : " "_ ifio
Kansas City, Mo., Police Department :: : :::: rio
Brown, Charles E., patrolman "::" " _ """ ^o
Head, James, patrolman ~_ ~_~~ ~~ "~ ~~ 564
Post, James, patrolman :: ~ 2^^
Stephens, Darrel W., patrolman : :__:Z:7:~~"77 "' 581
Sweeney, Thomas J., task force programs coordinator_:__:~~_ ~_~:~ 562
Kansas (Topeka) Department of Social Welfare, Dr. Robert Hard'er"
director ' ^-^
Kansas, University of, Lawrence. Kans., Achievemen7pi7c7 Research
Project :
Fixsen, Dr. Dean, research associate _ _ 868
Wolf. Dr. Montroe M., profe.ssor ^^^Jll^^^l^ 868 870
Kastner, John H., detective. New Orleans, La., Police Department.. . ' 95
Keating, Lucy, program development specialist. Department of Youth
Services, Boston, Mass _ _ _ jqq
Keller, Oliver, director. State division of youthVe'n-ices, T7llahassee:Flai: 766
Leenhouts, Keith J., director, Volunteers in Probation. Royal Oak, Mich .. 907
Leonard, Robert F., prosecuting attorney, Genesee County, Mich 1053
^^ ,.^^^ A' f'ii"^tor. Program Management Division, Cincinnati (Ohio)
Police Department _ : 247 254
Jt^^f?' Robert E., deputy inspector, New York City" Ponce'DepVrtment . 41 66
Martin, Rinal L., sergeant, New Orleans, La., Police Department 95 126
Martin Ronald H., patrolman, Detroit, Mich., Police Department 382' 389
Massachusetts Department of Youth Services •
Bergeron, Miss, client _ _ Tnn
Hall, Mr., client ::::::7:..:i:i:7::::~::::": 700
Keating, Lucy, program development specialist...:." :_:_. . :_ 700
LaBonte, Miss., client ::.:.. 700
DeMuro, Paul, assistant commissioner of after care.: 649 674
Pollock, Mr., client ___ : _:" _/____'_ 700
Ruth, Miss., client :: _" ~_" jqq
Massachusetts, panel of juvenile corrections experts Z
DeMuro, Paul, assistant commissioner of after care. State department
of youth services, Boston 649 574
Miller, Dr. Jerome G., director. State department "of 'children and
family services, Springfield 649
Ohlin. Prof. Lloyd E.. director. Institute on Criminal Justice, Harvard
University, Cambridge 649 qjq
Meador. Prof. Daniel J., University of Virginia Law Sch"ooi7chariottes-
ville, Va J201
Metcalfe, Hon. Ralph H., a U.S. Representative from the State of Illinois.. 283
VI
Page
Michigan, Genesee County, Robert F. Leonard, prosecuting attorney 1053
Miller, Dr. Jerome G., director, State department of children and family
services, Springfield, Mass 649
Minnesota Department of Corrections, Kenneth Schoen, commissioner 726
Minneapolis, Minn., District Court, Juvenile Division, Hon. Lindsay C.
Arthur, judge 745
Mitchell, Hon. Parren J., a U.S. Representative from the State of
Maryland 1231
Moylan, Hon. Charles E., Jr., associate judge. State Court of Special
Appeals, Baltimore, Md 1233
Mueller, Charles, sergeant. Juvenile Division, St. Louis, Mo., Police
Department 423, 431
Murphy, Patrick V., commissioner. New York City Police Department 6
National Assessment of Juvenile Corrections, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Mich. :
Isenstadt, Paul, senior field director 813
Sarri, Dr. Rosemary, codirector 813
National Council of Juvenile Court Judges, Hon. Lindsay G. Arthur,
president 745
New Orleans (La.) Police Department officials, panel of 95
Giarru.sso, Clarence B., superintendent 95
Kastner, John H., detective 95
Martin, Rinal L., sergeant 126
Poissenot, Lloyd J., major 127
Woodfork, Warren G., sergeant 125
New York City, Criminal Court of :
Goodchild, Lester, executive officer 1006
Ross, Hon. David, administrative judge 1006
New York City Police Department officials, panel of 6, 41
Callier, Leroy, patrolman 18
Cawley, Donald F., chief of patrol services 10,41
Crowley, Robert L., sergeant, neighborhood patrol team commander.- 64
Eisdorfer, Simon, deputy chief inspector, special operations 56
Freeman, Arthur A., deputy inspector 85
Garritani, Carl, patrolman 17
Hubert, Frank, lieutenant, auto crime unit 27
Luhrs, Robert E., deputy inspector 66
Murphy, Patrick V., commissioner 6
O'Friel, John T., sergeant 6
Rogan, John F., deputy inspector 65
Siegel, Joseph, insi)ector, auxiliary police 67
Tucker, Julia, lieutenant, rape investigation and analysis unit 32, 41
Voelker, Anthony M., deputy Chief inspector 10
Nichols, John J., commissioner, Detroit, Mich., Police Department 382
Nolan, Samuel W., deputy superintendent, Chicago (111.) Police Depart-
ment 276
O'Friel, John T.. sergeant. New York City Police Department 6
Ohlin, Prof. Lloyd E., director. Institute on Criminal Justice, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Mass 649, 676
Panno, Lawrence C, patrolman, Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department— 247,251
Peters, Emil E., chief, San Antonio, Tex., Police Department 541
Philadelphia, Pa., Arlen Specter, district attorney 972
Phladelphia, Pa., Common Pleas Court, Major Crimes Division, Hon.
Lisa A. Richette, judge 1035
Poissenot, Lloyd J., major. New Orleans, La., Police Department 95, 127
Post, James, patrolman, Kansas City, Mo., Police Department 562, 576
Ricci, John P., patrolman, Detroit, Mich., Police Department 382,394
Ridhette, Hon. Lisa A., judge. Common Pleas Court, Major Crimes Division,
Philadelphia, Pa 1035
Riegle, Hon. Donald W., Jr., a U.S. Representative from the State of
Michigan 1053
Rogan, John F., deputy inspector. New York City Police Department 41, 65
Ross, Hon. David, administrative judge. Criminal Court of the City of
New York 1006
vn
Page
Rottman, Herbert R., lieutenant, Chicago, 111., Police Department 276, 287
Rowan, Joseph R., executive director, John Howard Association, Chicago,
111 795
San Antonio, Tex., Police Department 541
Benfer, Robert A., captain 548
Fenley, Thomas T., sergeant 545
Glenn, Robert, patrolman 547
Peters, Emil E., chief 541
Trevino, Arthur, patrolman 546
Sarri, Dr. Rosemary, codirector. National Assessment of Juvenile Correc-
tions, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich 813
Schoen, Kenneth, commissioner, State Department of Corrections, St. Paul,
Minn 726
Siegel, Joseph, inspector, Auxiliary Police, New York City Police Depart-
ment 41, 67
Skoler, Daniel L., staff director. Commission on Correctional Facilities and
Services, American Bar Association, Washington, D.C 939
Spears, Hon. Adrian, judge, U.S. District Court, Western District, San
Antonio, Tex 1281
Specter, Arlen, district attorney, Philadelphia, Pa 972
Stephens, Darrel W., patrolman, Kansas City, Mo., Police Department.- 562, 581
St. Louis, Mo., Police Department 423
Armstrong, William, sergeant, laboratory division 423
Camp, Eugene J., chief of jwlice 423
Mueller, Charles, sergeant, juvenile division 431
Sweeney, Thomas J., task force programs coordinator, Kansas City,
Mo., Police Department 562
Texas, Harris County, Carol Vance, district attorney 1077
Tex., San Antonio, Hon. Adrian Spears, judge, U.S. District Court, Western
District 1281
Trevino, Arthur, patrolman, San Antonio, Tex., Police Department 541, 546
Tucker, Julia, lieutenant. Rape Investigation and Analysis Section, New
York City Police Department 6,32,41
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Pittsburgh, Pa., Hon. Joseph Weis,
Jr., judge 1122
"Vance, Carol, district attorney. Harris County, Tex 1077
Voelker, Anthony M., deputy chief inspector, New York City Police De-
partment 6, 10
Volunteers in Probation, Royal Oak, Mich., Keith J. Leenhouts, director.- 907
Walker, William D., reporter, WWD-TV, New Orleans, La 95, 122
Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Police Department :
Alprin, Geoffrey M., general counsel 324
Wilson. Jerry V., chief 324
Washington, D.C, Superior Court, Hon. Charles White Halleck, judge 1143
Weis, Hon. Joseph, Jr.. judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Pitts-
burgh, Pa 1122
Wilson, Jerry V., Chief, Washington, D.C, Metropolitan Police
Department 324
Wolf. Dr. Montrose M., professor, Achievement Place Research project.
University of Kansas. Lawrence, Kans 868, 870
Woodfork, Warren G., sergeant. New Orleans, La., Police Department 95, 125
Work, Charles R., Superior Court Division, Ofl5ce of the U.S. Attorney,
U.S. Department of Justice 1172
Yunger, Frank, president, Findlay Market Association, Cincinnati, Ohio. 247, 255
Material RECErvED for the Record
Alexandria, Va., U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Hon. Albert V.
Byrant, judge, prepared statement 1226
Allen, Milton J., State's attorney for the city of Baltimore, State's Attor-
ney's Office, Baltimore, Md., prepared statement , 1269
American Bar Association, Commission on Correctional Facilities and Serv-
ices, Richard J. Hughes, chairman, letter to Chairman Pepper, dated
May 21, 1973, with enclosures 965
Armstrong, William H.. .sergeant. Laboratory Division, St. Louis, Mo.,
Police Department, statement re "The Evidence Technician Unit" 442
vm
Page
Arthur, Hon. Lindsay G., judge, District court. Juvenile Division, Minne-
apolis, Minn., prepared statement 762
Askevi^, Hon. Reubin O'D., Governor, State of Florida, criminal justice
message to the State legislature 1335
Baltimore, Md., Milton B. Allen, State's attorney for the city of Baltimore,
State's Attorney's OflSce, Baltimore, Md., prepared statement 1269
Bayh, Hon. Birch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Indiana, prepared
statement 865
Bryant, Hon. Albert V., judge, U.S. District Court of Appeals, Fourth
Circuit, Alexandria, Va., prepared statement 1226
Busch, Joseph P., district attorney, Los Angeles County, Calif., prepared
statement 1118
California, Los Angeles County, Joseph P. Busch, district attorney, pre-
pared statement 1118
Center for Criminal Justice, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass., Prof.
Lloyd E. Ohlin, Research director, prepared statement 691
Chicago (111.) Police Department, Samuel W. Nolan, deputy super-
intendent :
General Order, re community service aide project 310
"Preventive Programs Division Community Service Aides Project" 315
"Report of the Superintendent," dated December 14, 1972 308
Training bulletin of the poUce department, re community service aide
project 312
Churchill, Winston, chief, Indianapolis (Ind.) Police Department:
"Fleet Plan : Measuring the Effectiveness of the Indianapolis Police
Department" (brochure) 193
"How To Describe a Suspect," re Indianapolis Crime Alert Program__ 165
Prepared statement 160
"Teenagers Want To Know . . . What Is the Law" (brochure) 171
Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department, Carl V. Goodin, chief of police:
"Com-Sec: New Team for a Safer Community" (brochure) 269
Prepared statement 267
Dallas, Tex., Police Department, Edwin D. Heath, Jr., director, criminal
justice interface division :
"Dallas Repeat Offender Study," report 481
"Operating Procedure" re criminal justice interface division 460
DeMuro, Paul, assistant commissioner of after care. State Department of
Youth Services. Boston, Mass., prepared statement 690
Detroit, Mich., Police Department, John F. Nichols, commissioner, report
re analysis of STRESS 417
Etzioni, Amitai, prof., Sociology Department, Columbia University, pre-
pared statement 1317
Fixsen, Dr. Dean., research associate. Achievement Place Research proj-
ect. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kans. :
"Community-Based, Family Style Group Homes" (outline) 905
"The Achievement Place Model" 890
Florida (Tallahassee) Division of Youth Services, Oliver J. Keller, direc-
tor, prepared statement 790
Florida, State of, Hon. Reubin O'D. Askew, Governor, message to the State
legislature, re criminal justice proposals 1335
Garmire, Bernard L., chief, Police Department, Miami, Fla., prepared
statement 363
Giarrusso, Clarence B., superintendent. New Orleans, La., Police Depart-
ment, five photographs taken from the room of Mark Essex 130
Goodin, Carl V., chief of police, Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department:
"Com-Sec : New Team for a Safer Community" (brochure) 269
Prepared statement 267
Harder, Dr. Robert C, director. State Department of Social Welfare,
Topeka, Kans., prepared statement 860
Harrison, Reese L., special assistant, U.S. District Attorney, Western Dis-
trict of Texas, prepared statement 1314
Heath, Edwin D., Jr., director. Criminal Justice Interface Division, Dallas,
Tex., Police Department :
"Dallas Repeat Offender Study," report 481
"Operating Procedure," re criminal justice interface division 460
IX
Page
Hughes, Richard J., chairman, Commission on Correctional Facilities and
Services, American Bar Association, Washington, D.C., letter to Chair-
man Pepper, dated May 21, 1973, with enclosures 965
Indianapolis (Ind.) Police Department, Winston L. Churchill, chief:
"Fleet Plan : Measuring the Effectiveness of the Indianapolis Police
Department (brochure) 193
"How To Describe a Suspect," re Indianapolis Crime Alert Program__ 165
"Teenagers Want To Know . . , What Is the Law?" (brochure) 171
Prepared statement 160
Justice, U.S. Department of, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Superior Court
Division. Charles R. Work, Chief, prepared statement 1194
Kansas City, Mo., Police Department, Thomas J. Sweeney, task force pro-
grams coordinator:
"Central Patrol Division : Interactive Patrol Project" 612
"Crime Specific Disturbance Intervention : Program Development
Phase" 593
"Sky ALERT" 615
"Sky ALERT II" 616
"Sky ALERT III" 619
"Sijecial Operations Division Task Force" 623
"The Proactive-Reactive Patrol Deployment Project" 602
Kansas (Topeka) Department of Social Welfare, Dr. Robert C. Harder,
director, prepared statement 860
Keller, Oliver J., director. State Division of Youth Services, Tallahassee,
Fla., prepared statement 790
Leenhouts, Keith J., director, Volunteers in Probation, Royal Oak, Mich.,
excerpts from "Concerned Citizens and a City Criminal Court" 919
Leonard. Robert F., prosecuting attorney, Genesee County, Mich., pre-
pared statement 1068
Massachusetts Department of Youth Services, Paul DeMuro, assistant
commissioner of after care, prepared statement 690
Meador, Prof. Daniel J., University of Virginia Law School, Charlottes-
ville, Va., memorandum dated May 2. 1973, re prepared statement 1225
Miami, Fla., Police Department, Bernard L. GTarmire, chief, prepared
statement 363
Michigan, Genesee County, Robert F. Leonard, prosecuting attorney, pre-
pared statement 1068
Minneapolis, Minn., District Court, Juvenile Division, Hon. Lindsay G.
Arthur, judge, prepared statement 762
Moylan, Hon. Charles E., Jr., associate judge. State Court of Special
Appeals, Baltimore, Md., excerpts from recent opinion, re waiver of jury
trials 1274
National Assessment of Juvenile Corrections, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Mich., Dr. Rosemary Sarri. codirector, "Sampling Plans and
Results" (excerpt) 845
National Council of Juvenile Court Judges, Hon. Lindsay G. Arthur, presi-
dent, prepared statement 762
New York City, Criminal Court of, Hon. David Ross, administrative judge :
"Annual Report of the Criminal Court of the City of New York,"
excerpt 1025
"Nine-Month Report of the Criminal Court of the City of New York,"
excerpt 1024
Press release dated Apr. 22, 1973, re impact of administrative improve-
ments instituted by Judge Ross for the period January 1971 through
June 1972 1034
Nichols, John F., commissioner, Detroit, Mich., Police Department, report
re analysis of STRESS 417
Nolan. Samuel W.. deputy superintendent. Chicago (111.) Police Depart-
ment :
General Order, re community .service aide project 310
"Preventive Programs Division Community Service Aides Project" — 315
"Report of the Superintendent," dated December 14, 1972 308
Training bulletin of the police department, re community service aide
project 312
Page
Ohlin, Prof. Lloyd E., research director, Center for Criminal Justice,
Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass., prepared statement 691
Pepper, Hon. Claude, chairman. Select Committee on Crime, U.S. House of
Representatives, press release dated March 28, 1973, from Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, re decline in serious
crime in U.S. cities 3
Peters, Emil E., chief, San Antonio, Tex., Police Department, report on
cases handled by crime task force, 1970-73 553
Philadelphia, Pa., Arlen Specter, district attorney, prepared statement,
with attachment 997
Pittsburgh, Pa., U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Hon. Joseph Weis,
Jr., judge, prepared statement 1138
Railsback. Hon. Tom, a U.S. Representative from the State of Illinois 323
Ross, Hon. David, administrative judge. Criminal Court of the City of
New York :
"Annual Report of the Criminal Court of the City of New York,"
excerpt 1025
"Nine-Month Report of the Criminal Court of the City of New York,"
excerpt 1024
Press release dated Apr. 22, 1973, re impact of administrative improve-
ments instituted by Judge Ross for the period January 1971 through
June 1972 1034
San Antonio, Tex., Police Department, Emil E. Peters, chief, report on
cases handled by crime task force, 1970-73 553
Sarri, Dr. Rosemary, codirector. National Assessment of Juvenile Correc-
tions, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., "Sampling Plans and
Results" (excerpt) 845
Specter, Arlen, district attorney, Philadelphia, Pa., prepared statement,
with attachment 997
St. Louis, Mo., Police Department, William H. Armstrong, sergeant, labo-
ratory division, statement re "The Evidence Technician Unit" 442
Sweeney, Thomas J., task force programs coordinator, Kansas City, Mo.,
Police Department :
"Central Patrol Division : Interactive Patrol Project" 612
"Crime Specific Disturbance Intervention : Program Development
Phase" ■- 593
"Sky ALERT" 615
"Sky ALERT II" 616
"Sky ALERT III" 619
"Special Operations Division Task Force" 623
"The Proactive-Reactive Patrol Deployment Project" 602
Texas, Harris County, Carol S. Vance, district attorney, prepared state-
ment 1114
University of Kansas (Lawrehce, Kans. ), Achievement Place Research
Project, Dr. Dean Fixsen, research associate :
"Community -Based Family-Style Group Homes" (outline) 905
"The Achievement Place Model" 890
Vance, Carol S., district attorney, Harris County, Tex., prepared state-
ment 1114
Volunteers in Probation, Royal Oak, Mich.. Keith J. Leenhouts, director,
excerpts from "Concerned Citizens and a City Criminal Court" 919
Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department, Jerry V. Wilson, Chief
of Police, letter dated May 3, 1973, re LEAA grants awarded to police
department 362
Wilson, Jerry V., Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department, Wash-
ington, D.C., letter dated May 3, 1973, re LEAA grants awarded to the
police department 362
Weis, Hon. Joseph Jr., judge, U.S. District Court of Appeals, Third Cir-
cuit, Pittsburgh, Pa., prepared statement 1138
Work, Charles R., chief, Superior Court Division, OflSce of the U.S.
Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, prepared statement 1194
STREET CRIME IN AMERICA
(Prosecution and Court Innovations)
TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1973
House or Representatives,
Select Committee on Crime,
Washington^ B.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice at 10 :15 a.m., in room 1302,
Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Claude Pepper
(chairman) presiding.
Present: Representatives Pepper, Waldie, Mann, and Rangel.
Also present: Chris Nolde, chief counsel; Bob Trainor, assistant
counsel; Thomas O'Halloran, assistant counsel; and Leroy Bedell,
hearings officer.
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
I would like to first observe that this is the fourth anniversary of
the creation of the committee by resolution of the House of Repre-
sentatives, dated May 1, 1969. During that time, we have had hearings
in over 20 cities; we have heard over 1,000 witnesses; we have pub-
lished numerous reports, have four other reports yet to be presented
to the House; and we have endeavored to find ways and means by
which crime in the United States can be reduced.
The last of our hearings has related to the problems of street crime,
of violent crime, and particularly concerning itself with various as-
pects of this problem, with the view to determining what are the most
innovative procedures and techniques in the country that would be
a ^ood example for others to follow, which have an impact on curbing
crime.
Today the Select Committee on Crime continues its hearings on
"Street Crime in America" by turning to "prosecution, courts, and
repeat offenders."
In prior weeks, the committee dealt with the "Police Response,"
and with "Reduction of Juvenile and Adult Recidivism Through Use
of Xew Correctional Approaches." Our police response hearings in-
cluded testimony from 13 major police departments across the country,
disclosing innovative programs designed to reduce street crime and
to make our cities safer places in which to live.
Our "Corrections Approaches" hearings elicited testimony from
some of the Xation's foremost experts and administrators charged
with operating correctional systems. For example, these hearings re-
^•ealed Massachusetts' bold experiment in eliminating entirely its tra-
ditional juvenile institutions, and replacing them with commimity-
based rehabilitation centers and small group homes.
(969)
970
This was done, as you recall, under the leadership and inspiration
of Dr. Jerome Miller, who testified before our committee, as did other
outstanding authorities on the same subject in the country.
Novel techniques must be tried, because if we have learned one thing
from our year's work in this field, it is that our traditional correctional
systems have been abject and dismal failures. They neither protect
the public nor rehabilitate criminals, particularly young offenders, as
evidenced by our national recidivism rate of approximately 75
percent.
I have just returned from a conference on penal institutions and
correctional systems at Ditchley Park in England, under the auspices
of the Ditchly Park Foundation, where people knowledgeable in this
area for the United States and Great Britain discussed from Friday
until Sunday evening various aspects of this problem of crime. It
happened I was the chairman of group B, which dealt with the in-
mates who were under long-term sentences; "sentences," as we de-
scribed, as being over 10 years, generally, in duration.
It was generally agreed that the long-term offender had three pre-
vious incarcerations.
We were concerned with what do you do with a person who has had
a record as a juvenile delinquent, who had been in the juvenile courts,
and who has had at least three instances of incarceration before the
fourth one, when we regard him as a long-term offender.
Society has failed after a fashion with respect to that man, he has
failed in finding himself and finding a useful role for his life, and
the penal system has failed either to deter that man from the com-
mission of a subsequent crime, or to correct whatever the predeliction,
if any, that leads him into the commission of crime.
So while it is difficult to get the public together to accept some
of the experiments that may have to be taken in approaching with
a new point of view this problem, I heard a very encouraging state-
ment made at our conference by the representative of the disciplinary
military authorities at Leavenworth, Kans.
He told the conference, at my urging, that in the last year and a half
the military authorities who deal with criminal conduct on the part
of men and women in the service in the last year and a half have re-
leased 550 men who have been incarcerated in their institution at
Leavenworth, to go home on a week's furlough ; and only two of those
men, some of whom were under long sentences, failed to return.
This gentleman said that they have a regiment there with that
same number of people — 500 people. If you were to let the regiment
go home on a week's furlough, probably more than two of the regi-
ment would not return. He thought this was an interesting experi-
ment in extending faith and confidence to these people, and giving
them a better attitude toward their role and perhaps toward trying
to get out of the life of crime and the nature of crime with which
they had been previously associated.
We have been encouraged by these imaginative police and correc-
tional programs Avhich have demonstrated progress in reducing levels
of violence in our streets, and repetitive criminal conduct, particularly
among juveniles.
This week, in the prosecution and courts phase of our hearings,
we will deal with several issues directly relating to crime prevention.
For example, what approaches should be utilized to divert certain
971
cases out of the criminal justice system so as to enable the prosecution
and courts to concentrate their limited resources on violent ojffenders
who threaten our physical safety ?
What kinds of punishment should judges mete out to insure physi-
cal safety? What kind of punishment should judges mete out to
habitual oti'enders to prevent future criminal conduct? What effect
does protracted litigation in processing offenders through our criminal
justice system have upon the deterrent theory of our criminal law?
Our hearings this week will provide some answers to these ques-
tions. We will liear from several of the Nation's outstanding pros-
ecutors who have devised forward-looking case screening programs
making use of computers and other techniques to make better use
of the resources. We will hear from eminent judges who will artic-
ulate their philosophy in dealing with criminals, ^particularly repeat
offender's, and who will also describe some imaginative devices such as
videotape, omnibus hearings, elimination of grand juries, written
briefs, and other techniques they are utilizing — or propose to utilize —
to cut the tremendous delays and court backlogs w^hich so plague our
process of criminal justice.
Regarding the latter, a recent study by the Federal Judicial Center
found that the average delay between arrest and trial in the busier
Federal courts is approximately 350 days. Nearly a year. That is in the
Federal system, which I dare say is better than you will find in many
of the States, if not in most.
In my State — Florida — the supreme court, about a year ago, laid
down a rule that all cases had to be brought to trial within 60 days
after the indictment brought the defendant within the custody of the
court. While there were a few cases dismissed at the beginning, the
prosecutors have generally found themselves to labor within that rule.
Add to that figure the time for the actual trial, plus the lengthy
delays inherent in our appellate process, and the end result is that
possibly years pass between when a typical defendant is arrested
and ultimately brought to justice by final disposition of his case.
We are going to hear today from one outstanding prosecutor. I
don't know what he will say about the matter, but my distinguished
colleagues here will recall we had, in the early days of this com-
mittee, the district attorney from Los Angeles County, I believe the
largest office of a prosecutor in the United States. He came here to tell
us how frustrating it was to him as prosecuting attorney to have
the appellate delay which occurred in respect to the final disposition
of the cases that he tried and when he got convictions in his court.
Some of them went on for years. I think one, I don't know whether
it is California or not, there is one celebrated case in the country that
went on for 12 years.
Simple logic dictates that such protracted litigation most certainly
negates the deterrent effect of our criminal law.
To restore respect for the law it is imperative that we alleviate the
"speedy trial" crisis in our courts. Disposition of defendant's guilt or
innocence must be promptly established with finality ; the guilty should
be placed under immediate supervision and, where appropriate, taken
off the streets. That is a matter that requires careful consideration, of
course. The innocent must be cleared without delay. Judges, prosecu-
tors, and other experts will testify as to methods for achieving these
goals.
972
Our first witness this morning is one of our Nation's foremost
prosecutors, Mr. Arlen Specter, district attorney from Philadelphia,
Pa. We remember with great pleasure Mr. Specter's valuable testi-
mony before our committee when we held hearings a few years ago in
Philadelphia.
Mr. Specter is a Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Pennsyl-
vania and a law review graduate of the Yale Law School. He served as
assistant counsel to the Warren Commission on the assassination of
President Kennedy, and has had a distinguished career as the district
attorney in Philadelphia for the past 7 years.
He has received numerous awards, both national and local. Although
known for being very firm on law and order issues, Mr. Specter oper-
ates one of the most innovative and well-run prosecutor's offices in the
United States. We will learn about some of his programs to screen
cases and divert certain offenders out of the traditional judicial proc-
ess in order to better utilize prosecution and court resources.
We are delighted to welcome you, Mr. Specter, as our opening
witness.
Mr. Counsel, would you proceed.
Mr. NoLDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Mr. Specter, would you care to present an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF ARLEN SPECTER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Mr. Specter. Yes. Thank you very much. Chairman Pepper, for
those very generous introductory remarks.
I am pleased to have been invited by this Select Committee on Crime
of the U.S. House of Representatives. I have prepared a statement
and if it is acceptable to the committee, I would like to submit it for
the record and then move to a more brief sununary statement of it
this morning.
Chairman Pepper. Without objection, your statement will be
received in the record.
[Mr. Specter's prepared statement appears at the conclusion of his
testimony.]
Chairman Pepper. We see an old friend here from Philadelphia.
Won't you come up and sit with me, Mr. Green ?
Representative Green. I just dropped in because I was doing a tele-
vision spot outside and I just wanted to say hello to Arlen.
Chairman Pepper. AYe would be glad to have you stay, if you could.
Representative Green. I woidd, but I must leave.
Chairman Pepper. You may proceed, Mr. Specter.
Mr. Specter. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, notwith-
standing the tremendous problems on street crime in the United States,
I continue to be optimistic that as a nation we can solve this problem
if we turn our minds to it and demonstrate the determination and
will to solve the problem. I personally believe that we have the know-
how, and the resources to get the job done. It is just a matter of the
day-by-day application and the determination to succeed on it.
I believe the essential question turns on three issues. They are,
No. 1, speedy trial; No. 2, adequate sentencing; and No. 3, realistic
rehabilitation.
973
On the issue of speedy trial, I think that Chairman Pepper's home
State of Florida lias the proper standard. Avhich is 60 days from arrest
to trial. That is the standard which has been recently adoi)ted by the
National Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, on
which I have been j^rivileged to serve. That standard, I might add,
liowever, is not innninent for the big cities in the United States, cer-
tainly not Philadelphia, because of the problems of backlog, but I
believe that is the goal which we have to attain.
I believe that we can attain that goal if we divert out of the system
the lesser oU'enses and add some additional resources and then make
some administrative changes so that we can then focus in on the really
serious crimes involving violence, involving repeat offenders, and focus
the attention of the courts on those cases on a j^riority basis.
In Philadelphia, we have been experimenting with a series of diver-
sionary programs which I know this committee is interested in and
I would like to elaborate on only briefly.
The program which we put into effect in the city of Philadelphia
was a program for trial Avithout jury through a new municipal court.
We had a magisterial system in our city which came into effect with
William Penn's Second Charter in 1691. It was corrupt, it was in-
efficient, it was changed through a long reform process in 1966, 1967,
and 1968. and so on Januaiy 1, 1969, we put into effect a municipal
court which tries cases A^athout indictment and without a jury and
it has enormously speeded up our criminal process, giving to the de-
fendant the right to a de novo hearing if he is dissatisfied with the
result.
There are a great many cases which ought to be tried but they do
not require the elaborate jury trials, nor are they likely to result in
jail, and the defense is satisfied with a conviction and they can be
summarily tried through a procedure such as our municipal court
without the elongated jury trial practices.
A second program which we have experimented with was originally
called, Preindictment probation, which describes its functional
operation, and its name was changed to a fancier title of "accelerated
rehabilitative disposition" when our State supreme court took the
Philadelphia model and applied it throughout the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
In essence, that program provided for first offenders on non\dolent
crimes, with some exceptions. They are brought into an informal hear-
ing room where a judge presides. There is no determination of inno-
cence or guilt, but there is an inquiiy to see if it is appropriate to place
the man under probation for a year or perhaps 2, and if he maintains
that probation, at the end of that year or 2, to wipe the record clear.
That eliminates the necessity of multiple listings which have become
the hallmark of the administration of criminal justice in the big city;
it does not get involved with the issue of whether the man is innocent
or guilty. There is a presumption that he is, but there is no inquiry
made because the offense does not rise to the level of meriting such ex-
tensive inquiry and there is no effort made to impose a jail sentence,
but only a brief period of probation.
That program has resulted in diverting a great many cases which
do not merit the time and attention of the coui-ts.
974
Another program which we have put into effect in terms of diver-
sionary programs has been police counseling, where my oiRce has ob-
tained a Federal grant which has enabled us to hire assistant district
attorneys to sit in police districts on a 24-hour basis and in the police
districts these assistant district attorneys counsel the police officers on
what is sufficient evidence to constitute a case which w^ill stand up in
court.
There is a review of evidence which is obtained as, for example, by
search and seizure, where there may be a constitutional issue of sup-
pression if illegally obtained, or where there may be statements which
may be suppressible under Mirmida or identification which may be
suppressible in terms of failure to comply with the U.S. Supreme
Court decisions.
So there is an effoit through this process to evaluate the cases before
they get into the judicial system. Last year, was our firet full year
of operation — it went into effect as of August of 1971 — but in 1972,
we processed out more than 3,500 cases through this police counseling
procedure.
It has been in operation in only three of Philadelphia's police detec-
tive districts, of which there are eight, and we have recently made an
effort to expand it by having the assistant not stay in one district full
time but to spend part of their time in each of the three districts. We
believe that ultimately it is desirable to have a prosecuting attorney
in every police district and it would result in tremendous savings of
time of the police officers on getting rid of cases which will not hold
up and would save the courts ultimately tremendous time.
Our fourth program, on the heels of the municipal court, preindict-
ment probation, and police counseling, has been an experiment with
narcotic addicts on a program called TASC — treatment alternatives
to street crime — and it has been federally funded with a $1 million
grant, where we make an effort to divert narcotic offenders at the time
of ari-est and at the time of immediate arraignment out of the court
system to a treatment program.
Here, again, we make the distinction between those who are only
addicts, contrasted with those who are both addicts and charged with
a serious crime, such as a burglary or robbery. We will not take into the
program anyone who is charged with a major crime. But there are a
great many addicts who come into the system who ultimately, through
elongated procedures, receive probation which is appropriate dis-
position, and the appropriate disposition at the end of the probation or
after probation is imposed is to have rehabilitation, and we are seeking
to bring that rehabilitation into play at a much earlier stage and divert
them out of the criminal justice system.
I might say to you, parenthetically, on that program that we are
in need of substantial additional facilities for drug addicts in the city
of Philadelphia, which is a matter, I think, would be appropriate for
this committee in terms of appropriate Federal funding, and I think
it would be appropriate for this committee to consider the desirability
as you see fit in your wisdom and discretion on having prosecuting at-
torneys in every police district, because to achieve that is a massive
program for expenditures.
Well, those are the four programs which we have used by way of
diversion, and I think that if the lesser cases are diverted out of the
975
system, then it is possible to concentrate on the crimes of violence and
the repeat offenders.
I believe that there have to be administrative changes made in our
State court systems, and one of the changes that we have pushed for in
Philadelphia is the adoption of an individual judge calendar, which
is a program where every case on entry into the s^'stcm is assigned to a
specific judge. This program is in operation in many of the Federal
courts, and we have put it into effect in Pliiladelphia on an experi-
mental basis, but we have not moved ahead as far as my office and I
would like to move ahead.
We believe that it is a very useful program because it eliminates the
possibility for judge shopping. And by judge sliopping, I mean an in-
terest on the part of the defendant and sometimes, frankly, on the part
of the prosecution, although we discourage it and, as a matter of office
policy, are rigorously opposed to it, but an effort to have a case placed
before a specific judge who may be lenient or avIio may promote the
interests of whichever party is interested in the judge shopping.
But when a case is called in the city of Philadelphia, and it is listed
before Judge A, if Judge A is a tough judge, it Avill be in the interest
of the defense attoi'ney and the defendant to haA^e the case continued
because when the case is relisted, it will be before a different judge, and
Judge B may be more receptive to the defendant's point of view. The
result is that the witnesses who have come to court, police officers,
civilian witnesses, both, are compelled to come to court on a second
occasion.
If it were known that the same judge would hear the case no mat-
ter when it was tried, then there would be no point in trying to get a
shift from one day to another.
Also, there would be greater responsibility on an individual judge
to dispose of a case if he knew it was his once and for all. But in the
court system which has 81 common pleas judges, there is an inevitable
tendency on the part of some judges to believe that if a case is not tried,
let it go over and I won't have to see it again.
Another factor' which comes into play is that the same excuse for
continuance may be given repeatedly if you come before a different
judge, whereas, if you have the same judge, the case is on a fourth
listing, the judge is going to be less likely to listen to my assistant say
the prosecuting witness is out of town, or to the defense lawyer saying
he is busy somewliere else, or his alibi witnesses are not available, and
the judge can maintain a closer control, perhaps continue it for a day
or 2 or 3, and set it for 4 or 5 weeks.
I think that kind of individual responsibility and certainty would
be enormously helpful as an administrative change.
I think that the couits in oui' society, especially the big cities, are
going to have to treat the criminal justice system as a crisis in terais of
longer hours. I believe that we are going to have to move to night ses-
sions to accommodate the interest of the people who are witnesses or
victims in our criminal courts and really ought to move to Saturday
sessions as well, because we have an overpowering backlog. We have a
shortage in Philadelphia of courtrooms. We have some shortage of
judges, as well, but the whole administrative procedures are going to
liave to be shifted and improved.
976
I think we do need additional judges yet, although Philadelphia
received -5 judges from the legislature last year, but before we can
take that case back to our general assembly, I believe we are going to
liave to show more progress and more productivity and more effort
out of the existing judges which we have. Currently, we have a short-
age of courtrooms, so that all of the judges cannot sit and some of us
are trying to move to a split-shift session where court may rmi from
8 in the morning until 8 in the afternoon, which would be the equivalent
of a full day, and then again, from 3 in the afternoon until 10 or 11 at
night, and be able to use the courthouse more effectively.
I think we are going to have to provide more diffei-ent counsel in
this country. Certainly, in the city of Philadelphia, where there is a
shortage of defense counsel. There have to be supporting personnel
from the prosecutor's staff', probation authority's, et cetci-a, and admin-
istrative changes in oi"der to have sufficient resources to try the crimes
of violence.
With respect to the issue on the serious cases, I think that one funda-
mental change has to be made in the attitude of the prosecutors and
the attitude of the courts and that relates to the issue of j^lea bargain-
ing. The practice of plea bargaining has grown up in our country as a
result of shortage of court facilities, arrd there has gr-own rrp a practice
in many areas, especially irr many of the big cities, although not in
Philadelphia, of accepting a guilty plea to a lesser offense in exchange
for a period of probation.
It is my firm belief that is a very undesirable way to deal with the
problem of violent crime, because the critical part of the entire criminal
process is the moment of sentencing. If the sentencing is not adequate
and it doesn't make arry difference how good the arrest was or how
good the prosecution was, the adjudicatiorr of guilt, it is simply all a
nullity if the senteirce is not adequate.
In Philadelphia, we have a guilty j^lea rate of 32 percent. In some of
the big cities in the United States — in many of them — ^the guilty plea
rate is irr excess of 90 percent. I do rrot mean to say that the offenders
shoirld not plead guilty when they are guilty arrd. irr fact, they should
plead guilty and they have arr absolute right to plead guilty. But what
I am saying is, the prosecutor shoirld rrot bargain away city hall in
exchange for a guilty plea.
The prosecutor should not feel the press of the criminal backlog, nor
should the courts feel the press of crimirral backlogs as a reason for
making dispositions in cases which do not make sense orr the facts of
those cases.
It is a problem for the defendarrts as well as for the prosecutor be-
cause there are occasions when a defendant will have been in jail
unable to raise bail. Example: For 2 months he will be in on an
"operating motor vehicles without the consent of the owner" charge.
He will assert his innocence. He will face a court calendar where his
case cannot be tried on a given day. He will be faced with the proposi-
tion, if he wishes to mairrtain his innocerrce, he will have to go back to
jail until the case is listed again 4 weeks later. But if he is willing to
errter a guilty plea, his case can be disposed of at that hearing, and he
will be released.
That is a very tough decision for a man to face who asserts his in-
nocence, who knows if he pleads guilty he walks out of court that day
977
and if he insists on a trial, he goes back to jail for another listing,
which may be 4 weeks away.
So the process of plea bargaining is undesirable fundamentally
from both the point of prosecution as well as from- the defense.
Once we have the speedy trial, and once we lire able by diverting the
cases by administrative changes and focusing in on the. serious cases,
then I think the second step has to be adequacy of sentencing. I would
suggest to this committee today that we do not have adequate sentenc-
ing in a great many of the serious cases which come into our criminal
courts in the big cities, at least in the city of Philadelphia.
I would like to touch on this subject for just a moment if I may. There
is a pattern of repeat offenders on crimes of violence where they are
receiving probation. A case in our Philadelphia court system that
was in the press on Saturday of last week involved a man who was
convicted in 1965 of a holdup murder, second degree. It turned out
to be a sentence of 4 to 20 years. He went to jail, was released in 1969,
then he was arrested on charges of possessing a revolver, a violation of
the Uniform Firearms Act.
He comes up for trial, gets convicted, and the judge places him on
probation. Placing him on probation says that he is probably making
a mistake. I have no doubt as to the error of that judgment and my
office is taking steps now to have his parole revoked so that he can be
committed. I do not want to identify the case further because it is a
pending matter. But we have problems, judging from prior cases,
where the parole authorities, when we will seek to have parole re-
voked, because if it wasn't serious enough for a jail sentence, the
parole authorities are then reluctant.
But I would like to call to the attention of this committee three
cases which we have litigated extensively which are illustrative of
the problem of sentencing. They are closed matters, although they
are relatively recent matters. These are three cases where my office
was grosssly dissatisfied with the sentence, where we petitioned the
sentencing judge for reconsideration of the sentence, asked him to
impose a longer sentence, where we were so dissatisfied with the sen-
tence we took appeals to the State supreme court, although the law
had been established that you cannot appeal on the issue of sentence ;
it is a nonappealable order.
But we took the appeals because of our gross dissatisfaction with
what had happened and w^e made an effort to even draft a new
common-law rule, criminal procedure, to have appellate review of
sentences. We were turned down. The State supreme court did not
w^ant to become involved in this issue, thinking it would flood them
with problems which they do not have the time for.
We pursued the matter beyond, to try to get legislation on appellate
review of sentencing and while we had some support, the matter was
not enacted and later our State supreme court, in a case called
Commonicealth v. Sf'lverman, ruled any increase of sentence was an
issue of double jeoj^ardy. So we are now foreclosed, at least in the
State of Pennsylvania.
There is some latitude, not much, on the Federal level, after Spears
V. North Carolina, decided by the IJ.S. Supreme Court, some latitude
perhaps for increasing sentences.
978
So, essentially, at least in Pennsylvania, we are left with the dis-
cretionary decisions of the trial jndge. One of the cases involved the
juvenile problems which Mr, Pepper came to Philadelphia a few
years ago to hear testimony on. It was a case called Commonwealth v.
Wrona, where two juveniles in the South Philadelphia streets were
engaged in a fight, and it was a fair fistfight at the start, until one
of the boys, one of the juveniles was getting the worst of it and he
picked a knife out of his pocket and went after his opponent with the
knife and he stabbed him twice and he killed him.
The autopsy report showed that they were very serious blows, that
the plunge and depth of the knife was substantially longer than the
blade, showing substantial push-down, and the wounds were substan-
tially wider tlian the blade, showing there was a real effort to inflict
grievous bodily harm. It wasn't a matter of some light touching with
a knife.
The defendant denied his guilt and said he was only defending him-
self, which was an absurd plea where you use a knife in a fistfight. He
was tried before the common pleas court in Philadelphia on a waiver,
found guilty, and my office urged the maximum sentences of 6 to 12
years in this kind of a brutal killing, in the light of the gang problems
and juvenile crime problems we have in the city of Philadelphia.
Joseph Wrona was placed on probation.
We had a case called Commonwealth v. Ar^iold Marks, who was
charged with possession of heroin, 4 ounces of pure, imcut heroin,
worth on the diluted market sale, bags in the street, worth $280,000.
So it was no small-time matter. He denied his g;uilt and was tried. He
was convicted. He was sentenced from 5i/2 to 11 months — not yeare,
mind you, but months. Which is, in my judgment, a totally inadequate
sentence, if somebody is gomg to be able to deal with $280,000 worth
of heroin and if you are then to be able to apprehend them and have a
constitutional search and seizure and succeed in conviction, after all
of those hurdles, it is a major sentence of the maximum of 11 months
and the minimum of 51/^.
Our efforts to g'et the sentence altered by the trial judge were un-
successful.
We took appeal in that case, as we did in Wrona, because we thought
those were unusual cases to illustrate the purpose of illegal sentence,
and the State supreme court, as I said, declined to reach the merits
of the case.
A third case involved a man by the name of Donovan, ComTnon-
wealth V. Donovan, who was the deputy commissioner of licenses and
inspection in Philadelphia, which is the department in charge of slum
housing and the issuance of permits and it goes to the very core of
our city operations in terms of making sure that slum landlords
comply with the laws on housing, and it goes to the very core of
our city operations on new construction, safety provisions, and this
man was the operational head in the capacity as deputy commissioner
of licenses and inspections.
We tried him and convicted him on multiple counts of bribery and
corrupt practices. We asked for a lengthy jail sentence, Donovan was
placed on probation,
I mention those three cases because all three were appealed after
we could not get the trial judge to change tho, sentence. They are
979
illustrative of violent crime, corrupt practices of government officials,
and of the narcotic problems.
Those are not atypical. I could bring to your attention reams, which
would fill the room, virtually, on cases which involve serious charges
where probation has been imj)osed.
As a third step after speedy trial and after adequate sentencing,
I would just touch very briefly on the issue of rehabilitation and
realistic rehabilitation. I have visited all of Pennsylvania's State
correctional institutions and I am sorry to say that the term "cor-
rectional" is a misnomer; they do not correct anything.
The necessity exists in terms of the defendant himself, in terms of
humanity, of rehabilitating him. But fundamentally, in terms of pro-
tecting society, because almost everyone who goes to jail today gets
out of jail, there are insufficient facilities on drug rehabilitation, which
I have already touched upon, and the factor which I found the most
surprising, both for Pennsylvania and also for the Federal correc-
tional system in Lewisburg in Pennsylvania, when I visited that insti-
tution, is that the correctional authorities do not know what their
success rate is.
There are no statistics maintained on what happened to inmates,
convicts, residents, after they leave the jails. You may find out
what happens to a man if he has a further scrape with the law and
then his record will be available for you when he is arrested again
and his record comes to your attention, the attention of the sentencing
judge, or the press, for one reason oi' another. But there is no systematic
check made of those who leave the correctional institutions, so that an
evaluation may be made as to whether the procedures on rehabilita-
tion made sense oi- not in that particular case.
I think that enormous attention has to be given to that area but I
am not going to dwell on it because this committee has heard of the
experts in that field.
Chairman Pepper. That certainly is an interesting statement, Mr.
Specter.
Mr. Counsel, would you like to start with the questioning?
Mr. NoLDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Specter, your discretion-
ary and screening programs are superb programs. However, certain
questions have been raised, particularly by the National Council on
Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, on which you serve as a mem-
ber. One, that there is inherent danger the cases might be screened on
the basis of deeply held social or political attitudes. Do you see any
substantial danger in that ?
Mr. Specter. Yes ; I do see a danger in that. I think that screening
poses a problem, that there may be corrupt practices, or there may be
practices which yield to special interests, as your question raises an
issue as to whether it will be responsive to special social interests. That
is why I think it is desirable to have it as visible as possible and the
ARD program avoids that because we do a number of things.
First of all, we contact the victim and get the victim's agi-eement
for the program. Second, we take it into a public hearing where there
is a judge, and any member of the public can walk in, and although
it is informal and brief, the case is fully stated. So that procedure
eliminates the possibility of abuse.
980
With respect to police counseling, when you have an assistant
district attorney and a police officer reviewing the case, there is, in
effect, an adversary proceeding because the police officer made the
arrest and he has an interest and it is a vested interest in having that
case go forward. If he is dissatisfied with the screening process, he has
ways of complaining to his police captain, who then takes it through
the chain of command and can bring it to the attention of the super-
visory personnel and the district attorney's office.
Mr. NoLDE. Have you found any resentment on the part of the police
in having their work reviewed by the district attorney's office ?
Mr. Specter. I think that "resentment" might be too controversial a
word, but I think it is an ac-curate word; yes. I think resentment is
probably too strong. The reaction of the policeman on the beat is "It's
a good arrest," and he will listen on the issue of search and seizure
and on the law, but he wants his arrest to stand up and he wants a
chance to push his arrest. We have found that we have worked it out,
that there have been cases where we have disagreement and, for that,
matter, I disagreed with the police commissioner about cases.
We have had some celebrated battles on the issue of arrest on police
brutality which have been major. But, of course, that is all right if they
are publicly aired. The final responsibility rests with the courts to
make the decision and below that it is the prosecutor's discretion which
is to govern, providing it is displayed openly for it to be reviewed by
the public. But we have worked out most of our problems with the
police.
Mr. NoLDE. As I understand it, approximately a third of the cases
are screened out.
Mr. Specter. That is correct.
Mr. NoLDE. Has this process resulted in impro\^d police techniques,
police work?
Mr. Specter. Yes, I think it has, to some extent. But I believe that
will be a long process. I do not think you can see enormous improve-
ments in a course of a year and a half of that. But I believe that as we
expose more policemen at the district level to an assistant district at-
torney who is going to get into the "give and take" with him, a dialog
on what is constitutional search and seizure, that it will be an enor-
mously beneficial, educational process to the police in the long run.
Mr. Nolde. Is there any significant risk that individuals who are
innocent may be suddenly coerced into participating in diversionary
programs rather than waiting the many months it takes to go to trial ?
Mr. Specter. Yes, I think there is a risk on that. Say, our program
on ARD — accelerated rehabilitation disposition — preindictment pro-
bation, because they do avoid the delays and the inconvenience of trial.
We are very careful in explaining that fully to them and they have
to be represented by counsel or the vohmtary defender, and we receive
waivers on the record that they understand what they are doing, that
they are giving up their right to trial.
So that the coercion forces are as minimal as possible. That is, we
go as far as we can to make it a voluntaiy choice. But you cannot take
the coercive factor out in terms of the alternative of the trial.
But I think that the consequence is so minimal that that is not a
major problem. When I say "consequence," I mean a period of time
subject to some probation, which may be very minimal, and then to
981
having the record Aviped clean. So I think on balance it is well worth
the effort. Well woi-th that particular risk problem.
Mr. NoLDE. Referring to your notification to the complainant of this
procedure, do the complainants tend to cooperate for the most part?
Have you had any difficulties in their objecting to diverting this
offender ?
Mr. Specter. The complainants are almost uniformly glad to see a
divei-sionaiy program.
Mr. NoLDE. How do you account for that?
Mr. Specter. I account for it in a number of ways. The charges ai-e
ordinarily minimal. They are not aggravated assault and battery, or
they are not robbery, they are not rape, they are not really serious
charges. They may be minor larceny or they may be a bad check or they
may be credit card theft. The victims are not anxious at all to get into
the criminal justice system as victims. They do not want to come to
court on a number of occasions and sit around the courtroom.
They are acquainted with that particular problem which they may
face. Our letter asking for their acquiescence is a relative full state-
ment of what we are trying to achieve and the social desirability of
the program and the solicitation of their cooperation in the program,
leaving t-o them the choice, and they understand that.
I think those are the reasons that probably go through their minds,
but we have had really great success in having their cooperation.
Mr. NoLDE. In both your ARD and the TASC programs, eligibility
is strictly limited to nonviolent offenders and first offenders, as I un-
derstand it. Does that really disqualify too many people who otherwise
might benefit from such treatment?
Mr. Specter. I think it does eliminate a lot of people who would
probably be all right in the program, and while we set those as gen-
eral rules, we are flexible in specific cases ; if a person has a prior arrest
which is inconsequential and in which he has been aquitted. We do
not deviate, though, if the specific charge involved is violence.
I just do not think we can if you have a burglary or any other violent
charge.
I think, also, that at least in the initial stages — and we are in the
initial stages on all of these diversionaiy programs — we have to move
slowly and gain public support and public acquiescence in the pro-
grams because they are very difficult.
We also have to gain police acquiescence in these programs. If we
move too fast and too far and have cases which are too serious and
have these cases come back on us, and have someone charged with a
crime of violence who goes through a diversionary program and then
goes out and commits another crime of violence, we can set back the
diversionaiT programs verv^ materially.
We are able to persuade the police about the desirability of some
of these programs because we point to the backlog on the robbery
cases and the murder cases and the rape cases, and they are concerned
about the prompt trials. It is a delicate balancing process and I do
not believe we can go too fast. Ultimately, the objective would be to
screen out many more cases which are going to result in acquittals. We
can tell pretty well, even though there may be a prima facie case, but
I do not thmk we are at the stage vet where we can screen out all of the
982
cases which are calculated to result in acquittals, if there is justifica-
tion for prima facie case for trial. Or perhaps we ought to move to
premdictment probation, ARD, on all of the cases where we are
reasonably confident probation will result.
But I think we can't go quite that far, at least at the present time.
Mr. NoLDE. Concerning drug abusers, many of them either have
prior records or, typically, they don't always limit their crimes to
nonviolent ones. What sort of treatment should they get?
Mr. Specter. The best.
Mr. NoLDE. How can we deal with them if they don't qualify for
the program ?
Mr. Specter. Well, we have alternative programs for them. If a
person has prior records of violent crime, then he goes to the trial
process generally and goes through. And when comes the day of
sentencing, if it is an armed robbery, we will seek to have a jail" sen-
tence imposed. If the court imposes a jail sentence and he goes to jail,
there are not facilities nearly adequate to deal with the drug addicts
inside of prison. If it is a matter where there is an extensive record
for drug abuse- and perhaps a burglary- involved which does not call
for a jail sentence, we have experimented in Philadelphia with a
program of what we call, "One Day To Two Years," where we ask
the court to impose sentence of 1 day to 2 years, so that the person
is eligible for parole instantly.
And if he then remains in a treatment program, he stays on parole.
If he does not maintain a treatment program, then we conclude that
he is likely to be back to crime to support his habit, we ask for his parole
to be revoked and put him in jail for the 2-year period.
So there are a variety of ways of dealing with the defendants,
depending on what stage they are. But all of the programs essentially
turn on whether there are facilities for treatment of the drug addicts,
residential treatment centers, or methadone out-patient. Those facili-
ties are in very short supply.
Mr. NoLDE. What is your estimate of the percentage of crime that
is drug related ?
Mr. Specter. About 50 to 70 percent. We test those who come into
our detention center, take case histories, and have tests, and on
various days it ranges between 50 and 70 percent of the serious crimes
that are drug related.
Mr. NoLDE. I take it you favor stiffer ])enalties for drug pushers?
Mr. Specter. I certainly do, I think where we deal with the pushers
that we really ought to be talking about really throwing the book
at them. I think there is a deterrent value in criminal law enforcement
and I think if it is more expensive to violate the law than it is to
comply with the law, that we will have results, I believe when you
deal with people who carry, possess or sell more than 1 ounce of
heroin, which has tremendous diffusionary potential, there ought
to be mandatory life sentences.
Mr. NoLDE. Would you distinguish between an addict offender and
nonaddict offender?
Mr. Specter. I would distinguish, ves: but principally on the
grounds of how manv bags they push. If you have an addict offender
pushing five bags on the corner, three bags on the corner, I am not talk-
ing about a life sentence for him. But if you are talking about an addict
983
who is pushing an ounce, I talk about a life sentence for him. You
ordinarily don't find addicts who have ounces.
But I think the principal distinction is the volume of their traffic
and whether they are really selling it to support their own habit.
Mr. XoLDE. Do you foresee constitutional problems in the urinalysis
sample you require of candidates for your TASC program?
Mr. Specter. I do not see constitutional problems because we have
refused in Philadelphia to condition bail on acceptance of the pro-
gram. Some experimental programs which have been federally funded
have made, as a condition to bail, agreement to go into the TASC pro-
gram. I have problems with that in terms of the constitutional issue
and that simply is not the purpose of bail, to compel somebody to
undergo a treatment program, even though it has a salutary effect.
So that our TASC program does not have a constitutional problem,
as I see it.
Mr. NoLDE. Returning to requiring speedy trial — and I am glad to
hear you say you support a 60-day limitation — would you support a
mandatory dismissal if such a requirement is not complied with ?
Mr. Specter. Yes ; providing you have a system which is capable of
handling the backlog and the workload and providing you exclude
from the time the continuances w^hich are caused by the defense, or the
continuances which are out of control of the prosecutor.
I think that at the end of the rainbow you have to provide for dis-
missal. It has to be a system which is tough on the prosecution, but I
think it has to be realistic and fair in terms of capabilities to prosecute
to start with, and excluding time which is not our fault.
Mr. Nolde. What about requirements on the defense side, if you had
a statutory requirement that trial must be brought within 60 days of
arrest? Several States have such a statutory requirement but they pro-
vide an out where the defendant agrees the delay should not bar the
prosecution. Would you support such an escape clause, or would it be
feasible to impose a similar burden on the defense, that they be ready
to proceed within 60 days ?
Mr. Specter. I do not like the idea of having the defense waive the
speedy trial issue. There are some jurisdictions which have had 60-day
trial limitations for a long time and they are totally meaningless be-
cause the waiver has become a way of life. The defense lawyer is busy
and he waives for his client and a smart defendant who waives and
drags the case out for several years almost assures his acquittal, wit-
nesses forgetting or dying or moving away, or the matter being less im-
portant if it is an old case.
I tliink this is a matter for the administration of criminal justice
and a matter for the courts and I think the objective of a speedy trial
is one which ought to be obtained regardless of what the parties say
about it.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Waldie ?
Mr. Waldie. Mr. Specter, with the improvements that you have re-
cited, has there been a measurable impact upon crime in Philadelphia
that you could relate to these improvements ?
Mr. Specter. Our major crime rate went down last year. Philadel-
phia has statistically the lowest crime rate of any of the 10 big cities
of the United States, according to the FBI figures.
984
Mr. Waldie. How long has that been the case ?
Mr. Specter. That has been the case for the past 8 years that I am
personally familiar with.
Mr. Waldie. And the crime rate went down all over the comitry
last year ; did it not ?
Mr. Specter. Yes ; it did.
Mr. Waldie. Can you ascribe these reforms relating then to that?
Mr. Specter. No. That is the conclusion of my sentence. I do not
think you can point statistically to these changes on case diversion to
come to any basic conclusions. We have not yet dealt with our back-
log on crimes of violence.
I think that in the long haul, that over the course of the past 8 years,
say — I am tentative on this — that there may be a relationship between
our crime rate and an attitude which we have had on pushing for sen-
tences and our opposition to plea bargaining.
In Philadelphia, we have had a running dialog for the past 71/^
years with the judges, pushing verj' hard on sentencing, and it has
only been partially successful. We have had a hard line by our police
department and I think there has been more controversy between law
enforcement in Philadelphia and our bench than perhaps in any other
city.
Mr. Waldie. Is that desirable ?
Mr. Specter. No; I think it is very undesirable. I think it would be
highly preferable if the courts imposed appropriate sentences with-
out having any necessity for the district attorney to speak up at
all.
Mr. Waldie. I gather there is a thread that runs through your testi-
mony that you don't have much confidence in your judiciary?
Mr. Specter. I do not have confidence in the way judges are im-
posing sentences at the present time.
Mr. Waldie. Do you believe that is the function of the prosecutor
to impose sentence ?
Mr. Specter. Yes, I do ; I believe that.
Mr. Waldie. What is the function of the judicial system?
Mr. Specter. I believe the function of the judicial system is to make
the ultimate determination, but I believe the prosecutor has standing to
make sentence recommendation.
Mr. Waldie. I understand that, but do you believe he should impose
the sentence ?
Mr. Specter. Of course not.
Mr. Waldie. But when you disagree with the sentence, when they
don't follow his recommendation, you believe he should have the right
to appeal ?
Mr. Specter. I do.
Mr. Waldie. You also believe that mandatory sentence removes the
judiciary from any contemplation of any individual differences?
Mr. Specter. No ; I do not believe mandatory sentences are practi-
cal.
Mr. Waldie. Would you call for a life mandatory sentence?
Mr. Specter. I do on the issue of drug sales. I think that is an area
where a mandatory sentence is desirable.
Mr. AValdie. WTiy is it practical there ?
Mr. Specter. Because I think that the normal problem on the im-
position of mandatory sentences would not hold sway on major drug-
985
pushers. I think there is an inclination on the part of the courts on
waivers to reduce the level of discretion to acquittals if they don't
want to face the problem of a mandatory sentence, as for example on
carrying a revolver.
But I do not think we are dealing with a major pusher, somebody
who has an ounce of pure heroin, that the judge will acquit to avoid
the problem of mandatory sentence.
Mr. Waldie. If we would not avoid the problem of mandatory sen-
tence by acquittal or reduction, why do you think he would avoid the
problem of sentencing sufficiently severe that you should require
mandatory sentence ?
Mr. Specter. Because our experience has been when we have pos-
sessors or sellers of an oimce or more, we do not get appropriate jail
sentence.
Mr. Waldie. If you had the life sentence mandatory, why do you
conclude the judae vv-ould not accept the lesser plea or dismiss?
Mr. Specter. Well, because I would
Mr. Waldie. It seems inconsistent to me.
Mr. Specter. I don't think the judge ought to have the discretion
to accept a lesser plea if a man is charged with the sale of drugs. If
that is the charge, then he either pleads guilty or he does not plead
guilty.
Mr. Waldie. I thought you said your general disagreement with
mandatory sentence was inducement of the judge to engage in plea
bargaining or accepting lesser pleas or dismissing.
Mr. Specter. Well, what
Mr. Waldie. In this case, I say if you have a mandatory sentence
of life imprisonment for possession, is the inclination of the judge
less in this instance than it would be in any other? If you say in
response to that because he wouldn't do that with a strong heroin
pusher, then why would you need a life sentence mandatory if you are
so concerned about the pusher?
Mr. Specter. Because, although he will not be motivated to acquit
a major heroin pusher, when he comes to the point of convicting him,
he will not impose a sufficient sentence. I will cite the Marks case I
already told you about, 51^ to 11 months.
Mr. Waldie. Has that been your experience that the judge is too
lenient on heavy heroin pushers ?
Mr. Specter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Waldie. You don't address the problem in the statement of yours
as to the disparate sentences by individual judges. Do you suggest the
Avay to handle that is whatever the drawer of the lottery comes out ;
that is, the judge, the defendant and prosecutor is stuck with? That
would address the problem of delay, perhaps, coming to court more
quickly. But that isn't really the problem, is it ?
The problem is the contempt for the system that the defendant must
have, to know the lottery draw will determine the sentence they receive.
Mr. Specter. Well, I do not address that problem in my statement,
nor do I address a great many other problems.
Mr. Waldie. How do you address that problem? Do you have
thoughts on that ?
Mr. Specter. Yes ; I do have thoughts on that. I believe sentencing
ought to be taken away from trial judges and ought to be lodged in
986
panelists. I have proposed legislation to our general assembly in
Pennsylvania on a number of occasions on the sentencing matter and
I proposed this legislation last year, and, as a matter of coincidence,
submitted it just yesterday to the general assembly, calling for the
creation of a 24-man panel in Pennsylvania to impose sentences in
panels of three.
[See material received for the record, at the end of Mr. Specter's
testimony, for a copy of the proposed legislation.]
Mr. Specter. I have come to that conclusion after our efforts at ap-
pellate review of sentence were of no effect because of the double
jeopardy provision.
But I would take away the sentencing function totally from the
judges on offenses which call for a term of 5 years or more. We
modeled our program after the California sentencing panel. But that
would provide the uniformity and, I think, would provide the ap-
propriate severity.
Mr. Waldie. In determinate sentence ?
Mr. Specter. Yes. Well, it is indeterminate in the sense that when
the judge convicts on a waiver or jury convicts, the matter would be
referred to the sentencing panel, Avhich would then have the author-
ity to sentence to the maximmn and that panel would then obtain
the uniformity and severity.
Mr. Waldie. One final question. With that approach to sentencing,
would you still call for mandatory life sentences ?
Mr. Specter. I think on heroin pushers, major heroin pushers, I
would.
Mr. Waldie. No matter how the sentencing is done ?
Mr. Specter. Yes ; I think that heroin is that kind of a problem in
our society today.
Mr. Waldie. Is that the only crime that you would call for a man-
datory life sentence ?
Mr. Specter. No ; I would call for it on first-degree murder, except
for the category of especially outrageous murders, which I would call
for the death penalty.
Mr. Waldie. And what others ?
Mr. Specter. None.
Mr. Waldie. Just first-degree murder and major heroin pusher?
Mr. Specter. Yes.
Mr. Waldie. And first-degree murder would be either mandatory
life or the death sentence ?
Mr. Specter. Yes.
Mr. Waldie. Death sentence for any other crime ?
Mr. Specter. No, sir; just for murders which result in a varietj^ of
particularly outrageous situations, contract assassinations, or recidi-
vist.
Mr. Waldie. Would those be up to the sentencing panel to deter-
mine?
Mr. Specter. No.
Mr. Waldie. That would be mandatory ?
Mr. Specter. The legislation which my office has proposed on that
would call for the imposition of the death penalty on a mandatory
basis in eight categories of first-degree murder and then an automatic
review of cases where the death penalty Avas imposed by the State
board of pardons. That is in order to have the requisite flexibility I
987
think you have to have if you use the death penalty, but no discretion
on the part of juries in those cases, or the courts, in order to avoid
the unconstitutional problems which are present in firm or wanton
or freakish or irrational imposition of the death penalty.
Mr. Waldie. So, if there were freakish or irrational imposition of
the death penalty, it would happen under this situation as there would
be no opportiuiity to review or make exception?
Mr. Specter. There would not be an opportunity, in my opinion,
for freakish or wanton imposition of the death penalty on the legisla-
tion which we have proposed in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Waldie. Which makes it mandatory ?
Mr. Specter. Which makes it mandatory for given offenses, but
then has automatic review by a board of pardons, which has the au-
thority to change from the death penalty to life imprisonment. This
provides what I conceive to be the necessary flexibility, and it com-
ports with the Supreme Court's standards, because instead of having
a jury in Philadelphia coming to one conclusion and a jury in Pitts-
burgh coming to another, which is the wanton aspect, each of those
juries would have no alternative but to impose death. Then the mat-
ter would be reviewed by one board in Pennsylvania, the board of
pardons, which operates under the standards we have taken in the
model penal codes.
If that board said the case A in Philadelphia was a death case and
case B in Pittsburgh was a life case, it would be with the same group
applying uniform standards, which I think would satisfy the re-
quirements of Justice White and Justice Stewart, who are affirmed
to have those swing votes to uphold the constitutionality of that kind
of application of the death penalty.
Mr. Waldie. Have you found the extension of the rights of defend-
ants in terms of evidentiary rules that the Warren court came down
with a handicap in terms of your responsibilities ?
Mr. Specter. I think they have been in some cases. I think that, by
and large, the decisions of the Warren court has been desirable for
the administration of criminal justice as a nation. But I was very
much opposed, and am very much opposed, to the retroactive applica-
tion of the Mitanda rule.
We had search granted in one of our cases out of Philadelphia,
then reversed seriatim when he found out it was State grounds, I feel
that goes too far, I think the fourth Miranda warning, I don't think
there is any such thing as intelligent waiver to right of counsel. I
think any intelligent application doesn't result in the waiver of right
to counsel.
I think by the time you give the fourth Miranda warning, you are
not really being realistic. That goes to far. Some of the decisions on
search and seizure, I think, have gone too far. But I think, basically,
the insistence on high constitutional standards for law enforcement of-
ficers makes good national sense.
Mr. Waldie. No further questions.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Mann ?
Mr. Mann. Mr. Specter, I am intrigued by your ideas on sentencing
and agree with it. In the meantime, what resources does a trial judge
have in your court to assist him in sentencing? Does he have pretrials?
Mr. Specter. He has a presentence report. We have our probation de-
988
partment obtain presentence reports, which will obtain a psychiatric
evaluation, a case history, family background, detailing the prior
record, educational background, and work record.
Mr. Mann. Given the independence of most judges, is there a con-
ference in your area where the judges confer on the questions of uni-
formity, deterrence, and so forth ?
Mr. Specter. They do w^hen they sit en banc, three judges on a
murder case, where they all have the function to decide it. There may
be consultation on an informal basis. There is a proposed rule of
criminal procedure to set the mechanism up for some consultation,
but the case histories in Philadelphia have not provided for such con-
sultation.
Mr. Mann. There is no judicial conference in your area where the
judges gather occasionally and discuss problems of mutual interest?
Mr. Specter. There have been a couple. I can only think of one off-
hand where there have been sentencing institutes where there are lec-
tures and discussions. I think more than one, perhaps two or three.
They have been very limited and only of recent origin.
When I was addressing myself earlier to the question of conference,
I was addressing it to whether a judge would confer with any other
judges before he imposed sentence in a specific case. And as I say,
there is none of that, except for rare cases.
Mr. Mann. Who administers the ARD program ?
Mr. Specter. It is administered by the court administrator and by
the district attorney's office. Cases are selected out of the system by my
assistants. They are then listed by the court administrator and they
are presided over by a judge.
Mr. Mann. Does the probation that is imposed, preindictment proba-
tion imposed in most of those cases, carry conditions at the time which,
in effect, amount to restitution to the victim ?
Mr. Specter. Yes, on occasion.
Mr. Mann. How is the individual judge assigned? Wlio makes that
decision ?
Mr. Specter. To the limited extent we have experimented with it,
it is administered by the court administrator, who makes an assign-
ment. He assigns the judge and the judge is then assigned a group of
cases. We have never gone so far as to have a judge get cases the
moment tliey are docketed, which is wliat I tliink we ought to come
to ultimately, but we have a large pool of cases in our major trial
program and the court administrator recently designated two judges
and took a group of cases, 50 cases, and gave them to one judge and
50 more cases to another judge.
Mr. Mann. On the question of plea bargaining, I recognize that you
have taken a hard line against plea bargaining. But, given your dis-
satisfaction witli the sentences, isn't it the feature of plea bargaining
that even sentences are sometimes bargaining?
Mr. Specter. Isn't it a feature of plea bargaining that sentences are
bargained ?
Mr. Mann. Yes.
Mr. Specter. Yes, it is. That is the whole essence of plea bargaining.
Mr. Mann. How have you been able to resist that temptation?
Mr. Specter. Because I will not be a party to agreeing to what I
consider to be improper sentences on serious cases. I don't get the
sentences that I would like and I have made that clear, but we do
989
get some sentences. I think if we succumb to plea bargaining, we
won't get sentences at all.
Mr. Mann. In many cases, you have your own idea about what the
court is doing and you may get it in the bargain.
Mr. Specit-r. That is fine, but it is not a bargain. When I say, "no
plea bargaining," I mean no negotiation or discussion, trying to come
to a compromise. ]My assistants review cases and they consult with the
chief of homicide or major trial counsel and they make a determina-
tion as to what a sentence recommendation is and we put it on file.
We t«ll the defense counsel what we think an appropriate sentence
would be and then he knows if he pleads guilty that is our sentence
recommendation.
But I am not prepared to reduce it in order to save my office work
or the court's time.
Mr. Mann. But it is a prearrangement to agree upon which the
defendant can rely.
Mr. Specter. He may rely when we tell him what we think a proper
sentence recommendation is. We will observe our word on it absolutely.
Mr. Mann. All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Rangel?
Mr. Rangel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Specter, we are living in a time now where most communities
share your belief that the judges are not giving adequate sentences for
convictions of serious crimes. Why do you believe judges who normally
are considered a part of this general community act in this manner?
Mr. Specter. I think that judges are very reluctant to send people
to our deplorable prisons. I think that is a good reason, not a sufficient
reason, but a reason which has some validity. They believe that going
to the prisons, the defendants will come out worse than when they
went in. The response I make to that is, given two undesirable choices,
of sending a man to the bad jail or leaving him on the street, we have
to send him to the bad jail, although we ought to improve the jail.
I think the judges for a second reason are gun shy in terms of appel-
late reversals. I had judges say to me, "I gave him probation. We
avoided appeal. If we had an appeal, you would have lost on search
and seizure ground."
I said, "I don't think we have gained anything if we are worse off
than we are now\ Let's take our chances. I think we can hold the case.
If there is an error, let him be exonerated."
I think judges are reluctant to see appeals taken.
I think beyond those considerations, it is a very difficult moment
in a courtroom to sentence a man, terribly difficult moment. Let me
tell you about one case. We had a defendant by the name of T. F.
Bailey who was charged with murder and confessed to all sorts of cor-
roborating evidence before Miranda. It didn't come to trial until after
Miranda and his confession was suppressed and all of the evidence
went out — clear-cut holdup murder.
He walked away because of the retroactive application of Miranda.
Miranda applies to every case where the trial was begun after June 13,
1966, even if the confession was obtained before and was constitutional
when obtained.
T. F. Bailey got into trouble with the law on another offense, on a
lesser charge, where the maximum sentence was 2 years. There was a
990
very difficult time in getting the maximum sentence imposed in that
case and I think it would have been hard put to impose the sentence
on Bailey in that case, really, a maximum sentence which was 1 to 2
years, although not really out of line. And my office urged a 1- to 2-
year sentence.
We were very frank about it. We urged in part because of the man's
record, and I think it was fair to consider the case where he had not
been convicted because that was part of his background. And at that
moment of sentencing, when Mr. Bailey's family was in the court-
room— and it is a frequent occurrence where there are wives and
mothers and children and there is sobbing and it is a great human
tragedy when a man is sent to jail
Mr. Rangel. As a former prosecutor, I don't see how that would af-
fect the judge and not atfect the district attorney at the same time.
Mr. Specter. Well, let me say this to you : I was the district attorney
and I was affected by it. The judge did impose a sentence, not the maxi-
mum of 1 to 2 years on Bailey, but I felt the difficulties that he ex-
perienced at that particular moment in sentencing the man.
Mr. Eangel. Well, with your background, certainly in your posi-
tion, if you are affected by these emotional things, then I assume you
would suspect that the j udges would be.
Your second thesis, that of worry of appellate review, would only
apply to the question of whether the judge convicted in the first in-
stance, or perhaps the question of excessive sentence ; but I don't see
how it would apply to being gun shy. In situations where you have a
crime with a statutory maximum sentence T think what you are say-
ing and many people are saying that judges are not using the tools
they have available.
Mr. Specter. When I say "gun shy," I am saying that the judge is
reluctant to have the appellate court review the issue of trial error. He
is gun shy about whether he is going to be reversed on appeal.
Mr. Rangel. What difference would it be if he sentenced 5 months
or 5 years ?
Mr. Specter. If he proposes probation, there is no appeal.
Mr. Rangel. I wasn't really talking about probation. I was talking
about low sentences.
Mr. Specter. Well, it is probation. Congressman. That is what hajD-
pened. That is what happened in that particular case, and that is
what happens.
Mr. Rangel. I assume you are just as strong an advocate of prison
reform as you are of longer sentences ?
Mr. Specter. I sure am. I don't think the longer sentences make any
sense unless you have prison reform. Well, they make some sense in
terms of separating the man for that period of time, but they don't
make any sense in terms of long-range solution.
Mr. Rangel. I was very interested in your screening process. It
seems as though this has relieved your office, as well as the court, of a
lot of unnecessary litigation. Does this mean law enforcement of-
ficers have the benefit of the legal opinion of your office prior to the
arrest ?
Mr. Specter. Yes, sir. Well, it is not prior to actually taking the
person into custody, but it is prior to making the formal booking. So
the person is taken into custody and brought to the police district, and
991
it is at that point, that early point in the process, my assistant reviews
it and makes a determination whether or not the man should be de-
tained, fingerprinted, photographed, sent to the central police ad-
ministration building.
Mr. Rangel, Prior to the time, the police officer has written his
complaint?
Mr. Specter. Yes.
Mr. Rangel. Then, in a hypothetical, would a police officer, prior
to making an arrest, check with your office to see whether or not that
arrest would be constitutional, according to the recent opinions as
known by members of your district attorney's office ?
Mr. SpEcraK. Not in the legal counseling program that I have
described to you. That is a matter of what goes on in the district. We
have procedures on homicide and on rape cases Avhere I have an
assistant available 2Jr hours a day who is a specialist, where the police
will review the evidence before they make arrest in those cases, make
an arrest at all.
But if you have somebody who is charged with illegal liquor sales
or larceny or receiving stolen goods, he is in the district and the police-
man will see some activities, see someone carrying a television set, they
will take him into custody and take him to the police station. Tech-
nically, an arrest has been made when they restrain his liberty. So
my man does not come into counseling the policeman until they get to
the police station. So we have not intervened before arrest.
But we have intervened before booking or processing. The police
might not even classify it as an arrest until they write up the criminal
complaint or make an arrest report on it.
Mr. Rangel. That is my problem. What prevents, Imowing most
police officers believe they are making good arrests and really want to
make good arrests, and in their opinion there is no question the person
they apprehended is guilty, what is to prevent a police officer from
getting a prior legal opinion from your office and conforming the com-
plaint to existing law, to make certain that the case is not thrown out
on technicalities ?
Mr. Specter. If you mean to be sure he complies with the law, there
is nothing.
Mr. Rangel. That his complaint complies with the law.
Mr. Specter. Honestly complies with the law ?
Mr, Rangel. No.
Mr. Specter. Then it is a fraudulent complaint that is tailored and
he has not made a constitutional search and seizure, but he finds out
what would be necessary for a constitutional search and seizure and
tailors the facts to fraudulently comply with the constitutional point.
Mr. Rangel. I think you would agree your office has been frustrated
by certain opinions by the Supreme Court, and certainly police orga-
nizations throughout the countr;^ believe that certain opinions have
handcutfed them and allowed guilty people to be released. With this
feeling, and the fact that your office makes available legal information
as to what would be upheld in the court, what is to prevent the police
officer from including in the complaint the language of the most recent
opinion to justify how he dealt with the arrest?
yiv. Specter. Wc make available legal information. We do not make
availa])le illegal information. However frustrated we may feel, I may
95-158— 73— pt. 3 3
992
feel, about what the Supreme Court has clone, I obser\'e that laAv
jueticulouslv. It is not up to me to convict the ouilty beyond the pro-
cedures which were established by the courts. That is what my assist-
ants do.
Mr. Rangel. I did not mean to imply that.
Mr. Specter. I am saying our sense of frustration does not lead us
to disregard what the courts have said. We are not so concerned with
convicting tlie guilty that we will take it upon ourselves to decide
wliat procedures are to be used to determine innocence or guilt.
]Mv assistant district attorneys review facts.
Mr. Raxgel. That is my whole point. Do you get the facts and
review them, or does your "office make available legal opinions to tlie
police officer before the apprehension? The cases I am thinking about,
in New York, involve situations in which the prosecutor's offices made
available to the police department a 24-hour district attorney available
prior to arrest, in order to avoid court congestion. Policemen would
call him prior to roundups and arrests, and inquire about recent opin-
ions, or opinions they weren't really certain of. and the result was
that all of the complaints that were coming into the district attorneys
office had really recent Supreme Court decision language incorporated
in them.
;Mr. Specter. Well, it is improper if the district attorney would be
in complicity with the police, or the police on their own, would falsify
the facts to" conform with recent Supreme Court decisions. But it is
entirely proper and it is a goal to be achieved to have an assistant
district attornev who will advise a policeman before he takes some law
enforcement action on how he may do it constitutionally.
So that a search and seizure warrant prior to arrest is drafted with
a full statement of probable cause.
Mr. Raxgel. But you do see the temptation of the call being made
after the arrest and the complaint conforming with the legal opinion
given.
Mr. Specter. There are constrictions in the ]Drocess and thev are
all around us and that temptation is present. It has to be resisted like
all others.
Mr. Raxgel. I assume you haven't run across those types of
experiences?
Mr. Specter. No, I think there are cases where police officers tailor
their testimony and falsify it. We have matters like that. I think it
is something we have to be vigilant on all the time.
It isn't easv in terms of being a lawyer who gives advice, because
a numbers writer can't have a lawyer on retainer. That is against the
law. You can't do that. But it is proper for a police department to have
counseling and they should have the educational value of information
in advance because one of the things we seek to do is to avoid confronta-
tions between police and citizens, where the police are goinsf into a
house without a search warrant or stopping someone on the street
without probable cause.
Mr. Raxgel. I think it is a good idea. I was just wondering whether
you had some safeguards Ave perhaps didn't have in New York.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Specter, do you have enough judges and do
they have enough assistance and facilities to keep your dockets rea-
sonably up to date ?
993
Mr. Specter. Xo, sir; we do not. We received 25 new judgeships for
our court of common pleas in December of 1971, just slightly under a
year and a half ago. I think with those; additional judges, we are still
short. But as I said in my earlier testimony, I do not think we are in
a position to complain at this time because I do not believe we have
made suiEcient use of what resources we currently have.
Chairman Pepper. You cannot carry out, then, a system in Phila-
delphia that the cases must be brought to trial 60 days after the charge
is made?
]Mr. Specter. We could not do that now, even if we had no backlog.
We could not do that.
Chairman Pepper. "Wliat is your idea about the sentence? Should the
judge fix the maximum sentence of the individual, giving the parole
authorities or executive authorities the power to reduce that sentence
in case they found justification for it, as distinguished from giving
nonjudicial authorities the power to impose almost an indefinite sen-
tence upon an individual f omid to be guilty ?
JNIr. Specter. Mr. Pepper, my choice would be, given all of the
problems of the system, to give a sentencing board the total range
of authority. I come to that conclusion reluctantly because it is a
major departure from our traditional sentencing practices, but I think
it is necessary. I come to it with the experience in California and I
understand the experience in the State of Washington, which has
sentencing by panels, none of whom is the judge in the case.
Chairman Pepper. What would be the criteria of those sentences?
Mr. Specter. I think that the sentences should be based upon two
factors : the nature of the act, to wit, the crime, and the nature of the
man, to wit, his backgroimd and his prior record and his potential
for rehabilitation and the necessity for confinement.
Chainnan Pepper. Do you find that longer sentences are more of
a deterrent to the commission of crime than shorter sentences ?
Mr. Specter. In my opinion, they are, Mr. Pepper. 1 think that the
criminal element is aware of the opportunity for committing crimes of
violence and being placed on probation, ancl I think that there is some
calculation, some substantial calculation, that goes into the criminal
planning and they would be deterred by knowledge of longer sentences.
I asked our board of judges several years ago to establish a policy,
subject to exceptions and extenuating circumstances, that anybody
found in possession of a loaded revolver in Philadelphia, illegally,
l)03session of a loaded revolver, would. go to jail. I believe that if that
message went out loud and clear that that result was going to obtain,
that there would be many fewer people with loaded revoh-ers in oui-
city. :.,.-.
Chairman Pepper. What would you say would be the effect as a
deterrent against the commission of crime if someone convicted of a
major crime would lia\'e to serve 5 years in an institution under some
sort of public authority as distinguished from receiving a longer
sentence? Do you think the possibility of a longer . sentence would
have more of a deterrent effect; knowing they were going to have to
serve a reasonable length of time, even 3, if not .">, years?
]Mr. Specter. Mr. Pepper, I do not think it is possible to come to a
conclusion in any general Avay that 5 years would be the right sen-
tence for a major crime of violence. Tliere is just too much difference
in the type of the offender.
994
There are many burglaries wliicli don't call for 5 years for a man
to be in jail; and there are many burglaries that calf for more than 5
years. So I would want more flexibility. I do think it is desirable to
have a jail seiiitence in excess of 5 years so that a man may serve, for
example, on an aggravated robbery case where he has a bad record,
inay warrant a sentence from 5 to 15 years, and he really ought to be
in 5 years in terms of toughness for sentence and oppo'rtmiity for a
rehabilitation system to work.
Chairman Pepper. That is on the theory the purpose of sentencing
people convicted of crime is the retributive idea the\' have oifended
against society and they must suft'er. Would that be the'justification for
that?
Mr. Specter. No; I would not focus on retribution or vengeance or
punishment per se. I think the legitimate goals of sentencing are de-
terrence of the individual who is under sentence and deterrence of
others and rehabilitation. I think those are the real purposes of
sentencing.
Chairman Pepper. What percentage would you say of the defend-
ants who have been convicted in your court have served previous sen-
tences in some sort of institution of penal character and generally
how many they have served in ?
Mr. Specter. Mr. Pepper, that is one qut^stion I would like to give
you an answer on at a later date, because I do not want to speculate
on that. What I would prefer to do is review, say, 100 cases in our
major felony program and give you an answer sj^ecifically as to how
many of those con^'icted have been previously convicted, on how many
occasions, whether they served time.
[The folloAving information was subsequently received for the
record :]
The District Attorney's OflBce in the fall of 1969 completed an extensive study
of a group of 275 open cases considered representative of the hard-core criminal
recidivist. It was found that in 25 i>er cent of those repeat-offender cases, the
defendant had a prior history of at least one narcotics arrest. Of this group
of narcotic offenders, further analysis showed that: (1) 77 per cent of these
recidivists had an average of three burglary arrests on their records; (2) 66
per cent had an average of two larceny or related-type violations; and (3) 60
per cent had an average of two arrests for aggravated robbery.
Chairman Pepper. Chief Justice Burger, in making a speech in NeAv
York, said we have about a 75-percent rate of recidivism in the coun-
try from institutions of penal character. At the Ditchley Conference
I "referred to, the concensus was the long-term people, the people who
were under long-term sentences, meaning sentences over 10 years,
generally had as many as three incarcerations previously.
I was just wondering, from the point of view of the protection of
the society, if a man has been in prison three different times and he
comes out to commit one or more crimes again, apparently the punish-
ment he has received is not a deterrent and, as you say, because of the
nature of the penal institutions we have in most places in this coim-
try, few get any corrections.
The institutions we have today have been referred to as colleges
for crime rather than correctional institutions. Might it be that if
society could forego its very natural desire for a certain measure
of vengeance in longer sentences when a heinous crime has been com-
mitted and think only of the future safety of the citizenry of the
country, that it might be better if we could try to do something to
prevent that person from committing another crime rather than to
995
give so mudi emphasis to punishmeiit for tlie crime he committed?
Ml'. Specter. Mr. Pepper, I woukl agree with that completely. I
think that we ought to arrange our criminal justice system to focus
all of our resources on turning that man's behavior around and try
to })revent him from committing another crime.
if I might amplify for a mimite, I think the class of individuals
■vve are referring to here is in some substantial measure a very difficult
problem, if not an impossible problem. We are trying to find pro-
grams for dealing with our juvenile delinquents on what we see to
be a pattern, where an individual at tlie age of 8 may be a truant; and
at the age of 9, vandalism ; and 11, burglarizing a vacant house; and
working his \yay up to robbery and perliaps a nuirder, and tr3^ing to
dig in with the 18-year-old in ortler to prevent the 18-year-old in
ll)8o from being a major felon.
Chairman Pepper. In relation to that, may I ask you: What has
been your observation as to the number of people coming before your
court charged with index crimes v/ho have had a delinquency or
criminal experience in their teens ?
]Mr. Specter. Verv, very hig-li.
Chairman Pepper. Th?n it might well be if we are trying to protect
our people from crime that we put more emphasis on trying to pre-
vent the juvenile class from becoming senior criminals at a later time.
Mr. Specter. That is what I was suggesting. We talked about the
heavy emphasis on the third-time offender. That person may well
be beyond redemption. I don't like to say that but he may be. I
woukl suggest the best place to work is tlio 8-year-old, lU'obably 8-to-
11 category, or perhaps even before. But we can already identify at
8, 9, 1,0,, and 11, patterns which we have seen on many criminal records
which end up with felony murder.
Chaii;man Pepper. Isn't it true the majorit}' of the crime is com-
mitted by a relatively few people ?
Mr. Specter. Yes. . ; , • ; ,
Chairman Pepper. That would seem to suggest tliat it may be
wise from a social point of view that we tr}^ to concentrate on those
people, to see if we can't some way or the other, prevent them from
falling into the criminal class, going into the pipeline so to speak
and coming out later on as an adult criminal, a habitual criminal
who has committed serious crimes.
As ypu refer to penal institutions, I wonder if we haven't, to a
large degree, been spinning our wheels. We go through the expensive
process of appi-ehension, with a large police force, an extensive pros-
ecutiiig.iind court system, an inade(iiuite probation system, and then
we have these expensive penal institutions.
We were told at our juvenile heai'ings the week before the recess
that in some instances public authoi-ities were paying as much as $-50,-
000 a year for individual delinquents who were in some of these in-
stitutions; from which they generally come out worse than they
entered. '...,:
Somebody pointed out that 30U could not only send them to college,
but you could send them abroad every sunmier and still save money
compared to what you are spending on them now.
Mr. Specter. A one-Avay ticket, Mr. Chairman ?
Chairman Pepper. Well, we might give them the choice at least.
But in dealing with our penal institutions, I remember very w^ell
when our connnittee went up to Attica, we had an interview with
996
Governor Rockefeller before v:e went on down to Attica, and right
off the Governor said, "I know the penal system of New York needs
correction ; it needs modernizing ; it needs improvement ; but where is
the money coming from ?
It seems to me that most of the systems that we now have, most of
the penal institutions, the end results of all of this fine effort yoa put in
as a prosecutor and all of the efforts that the court makes, the end re-
sult is frustrating to all of your effort.
The concern to me is how we can arouse the public consciousness to
be willing to do something about that most important aspect of the
whole criminal problem. Would you say that the penal institution, by
its nature and character and its worth, is very relevant to what you are
seeking to achieve in your criminal system ?
Mr. Specter. Absolutely. I think unless you have a realistic sen-
tence, and then some rehabilitation beyond, the entire police arrest,
prosecution, court inputs are meaningless.
Chairman Pepper. I am hoping that this committee will recommend
to tlie House of Representatives that the Federal Government be
willing, at least in the initial stages of such a program, to put up 50
percent of the cost of building small institutions of the most modern
character, with perhaps relatively few facilities for maximum security,
to house a population not to exceed 300 or 400, preferably 300, located
in urban areas as much as possible, in territories from which these in-
mates come, where outside work opportunities are available for them,
and where there will be an opportunity for them to keep contact witli
their families and friends.
If we could encourage the States to start building that type of in-
stitution with the best possible techniques applied in their operation,
once they got them built we could experiment with them to see whether
they were doing a better job than the old, large institutions. And then
once they were built, the State could carry them on and the Federal
Government wouldn't have to participate so much in the expense
thereafter.
Any other questions ?
]Mr. Waldie. Just one.
Mr. Spect^^r. I know you support long-t<^rm sentencing — you
thought it could serve two purposes: as a deterrent, and for rehabili-
tation, and, obviously, rehabilitation is not part of the det/crrent. The
only function to be served by the imposition of the death sentence,
then, is deterrence.
Mr. Specter. Yes, sir.
Mr. "VValdie. Has Pennsylvania had the death sentence up until
Mr. Specter. Yes. sir.
Mr. Waldie. Until the period of the moratorium ?
]Mr. Specter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Waldie. How long has it been since an execution ?
Mr. Specter. 1962.
Mv. Waldie. Is there some feeling, some statistical indication, that
the failure to impose the death sentence during that period of time
has had impact on the deterrence?
Mv. Specter. "WTiile there are statistics which can be mustered on
that in Pennsylvania. I do not believe they are at all conclusive. I am
loathe to use the statistics in almost any line to support a conclusion
with the criminal justice system, as we were discussing on the crime
rate.
997
Tliere is a judgment on my part that the death penalty is an effec-
tive deterrent and I come to that conchision based on many cases
which I have seen, where professional burglars say they do not carry
Aveapons because they are fearful of being apprehended and facing
the possibility of the death sentence. Cases where we have seen ju-
veniles going on robberies who will refuse to go along if a weapon is
involvecl, for fear of the death penalty.
Cases in our criminal institution at Dallas where there have been
two murders allegedly committed by lifers since the Funnan decision
came down.
As a matter of judgment, I am persuaded that the death penalty is
a deterrent.
Mr. Waldie. If you were not so persuaded there would be no other
justification, would there ?
]Mr. Specter. No, sir.
Mr. Waldie. For street crimes, violence on the streets, the death
penalty has little impact on that ; I would presume ?
Mr. Specter. No; I would say that it does. I would say the death
penalty is a very serious matter on robbers'/murder — the No. 1 street
crime. It is hard to say it is really No. 1. The three big street crimes
are robbery, rape, and burglary, probably in that order, but I think
the death penalty has a real impact on the robbery issue.
]Mr. Waldie. No further questions, jNIr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Specter, we wish to thank you very much
for coming and making a valuable contribution to our hearing.
]Mr. Specter. I appreciate the invitation.
[The following material, previously mentioned, was received for
the record :]
Pkepared Statement of Arle>' Specteb, District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pa.
After seven years as District Attorney of Philadelphia, I continue to be con-
fident that this nation can turn back the wave of violent crime providing we
demonstrate the will to do so. As a nation, we have the resources and the tech-
nology to accomplish that objective. All we lack is a firm commitment and a
day-by-day application to get the job done.
In outline form, America can win the war on crime by :
I. I'roviding Speedy Trials for Defendants Accused of Crime.
A. Defendants, charged with robbery and rape, should be brought to trial
in a few weeks instead of many months so that they are not on bail commit-
ting other robberies and rapes.
B. The constitutional right to a speedy trial must be made more than a
myth which can be found only in the Constitution and not in the bulging
detention centers of our big cities. Men and women incarcerated before
trial must be tried promptly.
C. Sufficient courtrooms, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and sup-
porting personnel must be provided to try the serious cases.
D. Plea bargaining must be eliminated. Giving away City Hall is not
the an.swer to clearing the docket.
E. Extensive use must be made of police counseling to eliminate minor
cases at the time of arrest and of diversionary programs such as Pre-
Indictment Probation, Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition, and TASC
(Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime) so that lesser matters may be
eliminated from the traditional criminal justice system case flow to give the
trial courts time to concentrate on the serious cases.
F. The individual judge calendar must be instituted so that the motive
to "judge shop" is eliminated, and court hours must be extended to include
evening and weekend sessions.
II. Tough Sentences for Tough Criminals Where Warranted by the Facts.
III. Realistic Rehabilitation.
A. Correctional systems must be reformed to teach inmates to read and
write and train with a vocational skill.
998
B. Psychological counseling and psychiatric therapy must be made avail-
able in the prisons.
O, Cure of drug addicts, who cause fifty to seventy per cent of serious
crime, must be undertaken on a systematic nationwide basis.
Americans are, of course, looking to their public officials — the police, prosecu-
tors, judges and correctional authorities — to tind answers to the problem of
violent crime which confronts this nation.
After fifteen months of deliberation and debate, the National Advisory Com-
mission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals recently completed its blue-
print for vast improvements in the criminal justice system in the United
States. I served as a member of that Commission. We approached our task with
the realization of the deep and destructive impact that violent crime has on the
quality of life in America, especially in our major cities.
To paraphrase President Franklin Delano Roosevelt — what we have to fear
is fear itself.
Referring to New York City, the National Observer has characterized that
city's problem as "fear by day, terror by night." The Observer made the point
that the after-dark fear of the Bedford-Stuyvesant ghetto has now moved into
the elegant apartments of Sutton Place. The Observer quotes Herman Glaser,
former President of the New York Trial Lawyers Association and a man who
was mugged and robbed in broad daylight just off Madison Avenue, as saying.
"There were about 100 people on the strcer, but nobody came to help me.
Nobody."
This public paralysis is a shameful legacy of the IDGOs when our population
grew by 13% while the incidence of serious crime in America increased by
148%. Our citizens not only stand mute on the streets, but stay fearful in their
homes at night.
A recent Newsweek Magazine analyzed the conseciuences of America's "for-
tress mentality". A generation ago, that would have meant concern about attack
from iK)wers outside our borders instead of pi-owlers inside our bedrooms. The
Newsweek article catalogued the increasing insignias of a frightened society :
"four locks on an apartment door, the evening bridge game abandoned, calis and
buses that no longer make change, the armed guard inside a junior high school —
and with nearly everyone, a perpetual feeling of vulnerability."
To confront this problem, America has produced a criminal justice system
where criminals too seldom go to trial, too frequently evade conviction and too
rarely go to prison. The unhappy result is more crime in the streets and more
confusion in the courts.
But the problem of violent crime is su.sceptible to long-range solution and
short-i'auge improvement. While moving to eliminate the underlying causes qf
crime, we can put into operation reasonably immediate reforms in the criminal
justice system to: (1) make the speedy trial a reality so that criminal defend-
ants are tried within a few weeks instead of months or years; (2) obtain ade-
quate sentences for the guilty ; and (3) provide a correctional system with realis-
tic rehabilitation to curtail the plagiie of revolving door justice where defendants
move through crimes, the courts and corrections, and then right back to crime
again.
The. National Commission on Criminal .Justice Standards and Goals has pro-
posed specific reforms to make it happen, to push us toward victory in the war
on crime — providing its recon:(mendations are properly implemented.
The first step in moving away from what has become a commitment to con-
fusion is to move toward the elimination of trial delay. ' '
The delay in trial of criminal cases is the most pressing problem facing the
Prosecuting Attorney of any large city. In far too many instances, the District
Attorney's hardest job is not convicting the guilty but bringing a defendant to
trial in the first place.
While defendants are on bail for months and months, too many commit more
crimes of violence. The hard answer is not to deny the defendants the right to
bail, but to deny the court system the self -asserted privilege to trial delay.
To make the speedy trial a reality, the court system needs more manpower,
muscle and methodology. If Americans continue to spend more money on cos-
metics than on courtrooms, they may be beautiful but they won't be safe. ,'.;
But' u! ore money alone is not the answer. Public officials cannot continue the
perpetual plea for more money without applying creative innovations to rpfoini
the administration of the criminal courts.
To solve the massive problem of backlog, court resources must be increased, but
even more fundamentally court caseloads must be decreased. As a first step,
cases should be screened by the Prosecuting Attorney before arrests are made
by the police. Through such review, cases can be dropped at the police stations
999
before they are dragged through the courts. Court time should not be wasted
where the evidence must be suppressed because it was obtained by unconstitu-
tional means.
We have put this case-screening concept into operation in Philadelphia with
a pilot project funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. As-
sistant District Attorneys have been assigned around the clock in selected police
districts. These prosecutors review every criminal complaint prior to arrest and
every search warrant affidavit prior to execution. Our statistics show that v»e
reject one-third of all the cases which are brought to us by the police for review.
A second diversionary program has the potential to divert large numl)ers of
cases from the trial courts where experience shows that jail sentences are not
re(iuired. This program, called Accelerated Reha))ilitative Disposition, removes
from the trial docket those cases involving defendants with no previous record or
an insignificant prior record who are charged with nonviolent criminal offenses.
After a l>rief, informal conference, defendants are placed on probation with the
stipularion that the charges will be dropped if they stay out of trouble for a year
or two, as designated by the conference judge.
While it might be preferable to de-criminalize some of these charges, that
re(iuires lengthy proceedings through indifferent state legislatures. The Prose-
cutor has ample discretion, and should use it to segregate out the cases which
do not have sufficient priority to compete with violent crimes for the attention of
tlie trial courts.
After 2 years of successful operation in Philadelphia where more than 12,000
cases have been handled through this program, the Supreme Court of Pennsyl-
vania has promulgated rules which establish detailed procedures for District
Attorneys around the State to divert cases through Accelei-ated Rehabilitative
Disposition.
The third inn(»vative screening program initiated by this Office is Treatment
Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC), which offers heroin addicts who meet
criteria established to assess the seriousness of their past record and current
charge, a whole range of drug treatment programs and counseling.
As yet another means of streamlining the trial process on lesser cases, we
amended our Pennsylvania State Constitution in 1968 to establish a new Munici-
pal Court where lesser charges could l>e tried without indictment or jury trial.
The great majority of these cases are tried at their first or second listing. During
the first 2 years of operation, the average length of time between arrest and trial
in Municipal Court was only 44 days.
In 1972. 42.0OO case.s were tried in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. While
defendants have a right to trial de novo with a jury after indictment on an
apiieal from a Municipal Court conviction, this right to appeal was exercised in
only approximately 12% of these cases.
By use of such innovations, it is possible to meet the Commission's proposed
standard of sixty days from arrest to trial.
Through the use of these reforms. Philadelphia's criminal backlog has been
reduced from 11,&45 cases in 1965 to 5,079 cases in 1972. This reduction in back-
log has been achieved in the face of a firm policy against wholesale dispositions
through plea bargaining. Contrasted with some other major American cities
where more than 90% of cases are concluded by guilty plea, we have disposed of
only 32% of our cases in Philadelphia through the guilty plea — and the vast
majority of these pleas are non-negotiated.
Once we have isolated the important cases which require a determination
of innocence or guilt and call for tough sentences for criminals convicted of
tough crimes, those cases should go to trial without plea bargaining. The long-
standing reliance on plea negotiations to break up the logjam of the criminal
docket destroys the adversary proc*ess. denies essential constitutional rights
and diminishes the prospect of sentencing for the violent recidivist.
In practical application, plea bargaining often turns into a sophisticated form
of the coerced confession. All too often defendants are faced with the choice of :
(1) confess, through the guilty plea, and walk out of court free on probation;
or (2) stay in jail for weeks or months awaiting trial assignment and then face
a much longer sentence if convicted. While all condemn the rack and tlnimb-
screw confessions of 15th century Spain, our judicial system daily encourages
its 20th Century counterpart — plea bargaining.
An unhappy by-product of this courtroom bargaining is the cynicism which it
engenders in the defendant. Serving time on a chare:e that has little relation to
reality corrodes and complicates the tasks of rehal>ilitation and correction. This
1000
finding appears in the Report of the recent New York State Special Commission
on Attica which concluded : "What makes inmates most cynical about their
preprison experience is the plea-bargaining system ..."
The pressures of plea bargaining are totally destructive of the Prosecutor's
effort to obtain tough sentences for tough criminals. The District Attorney should
not be coerced by a crushing backlog to give away City Hall in order to avoid trial
through the guilty plea.
Experience with plea bargaining in many jurisdictions has taught us the
painful lesson, again and again, that the violent criminal who secures his freedom
through plea bargaining is often encouraged to rob or rape again. The practical
effect of plea bargaining unquestionably results in the violent recidivist receiving
less than adequate prison sentence.
Because of crushing backlogs in the criminal courts, the system has sur-
I'endered to the apparent necessity for plea bargaining. Plea bargaining received
its ultimate sanction a year ago when Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in a
United States Supreme Court opinion :
"The disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecutor and
the accused, sometimes loosely called 'plea bargaining' is an essential component
of the administration of justice. Properly administered, it is to be encouraged."
I submit to you, respectfully, that Chief Justice Burger is wrong and the sys-
tem is wrong which clings to life through the artificial respiration of plea bar-
gaining. The National Commission is both correct and courageous in demanding
an end to plea bargaining.
The bitter experience of our criminal courtrooms has demonstrated that the
bai-gained plea is really no bargain. We should not settle for a system which
simultaneously deprives the innocent defendant of the forum where the prose-
cutor is compelled to prove his case, and the public is victimized by excessive
leniency for hard-core criminal repeaters.
Almost as important as the elimination of plea bargaining is the institution of
the individual judge calendar so that responsibility is assigned to one judge for
each case the moment that an indictment is returned.
This reform would eliminate judge shopping because counsel would know that
a continuance would not result in having another judge hear the case. Accord-
ingly, the motive to judge shop would be eliminated once it was plain that the
assigned judge will ultimately try the case and impose sentence no matter how
many times it is continued.
As a part of this effort to more effectively utilize existing resources we must be
prepared to try cases on Saturdays and at night — and on split shifts if the need
dictates, as it certainly seems to.
Ultimately, however, we must be prepared to try the serious criminal cases
without plea bargaining or judge shopping. Our criminal justice system must be
updated from the horse and buggy era, where horse trading for guilty pleas has
tainted the system and degraded its participants.
In calling for the elimination of plea bargaining in five years, the Commis-
sion has sounded the clarion call for the most fundamental of reforms in the
criminal justice system. Following appropriate sentencing for the violent recid-
ivist, the correctional system must then be in a position to provide realistic
rehabilitation. These reforms will provide the best opportunity for dealing with
the problems of violent crime while protecting constitutional safeguards for
those accused of crimes.
Our first President, moving quickly in his first term to enact legislation
establishing our judiciary, stated: "Impressed with the conviction that the
true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government. I have
considered the first arrangement of the Judicial Department as essential to the
happiness of our country and the stability of its political system." In the finest
tradition of that excellent adWce. we should move forward on what George
Washington Started out to do — make our courts effective, even-handed agents
of justice.
It may be possible that the fear which is rampant in our cities today is the
catalyst required to cause our collective efforts to catch fire. The message of the
National Commission is not blowing in the wind, it is written on the face of
every citizen in this country who thinks he has a better chance of getting
jumpe<l in the streets than of getting justice in the courts.
Some of the problems have been defined and overdefined. The battle to over-
come these problems will not be won in a day or perhaps even in a decade.
Our efforts and concern at improving our system of criminal justice must be
matched by efforts and concern at improving our system of social justice. We
1001
cannot overlook the ills of :iir and water pollution, oi* of inadequate food and
housinjir for the jtoor in our cities, or of low-grade education in an era wliich
demands high-grade slcills. If you were to mai-k on a map tlie areas in our
country where there is poor housing, inadequate education, poverty, and crime,
you would be pointing to the same place every time.
For this reason, we must help our nation's poor not out of charity, hut out
of choice; not solely with money, but aliso with motivation; not because we are
afraid of their increasing hostility, but because we are aware of our increas-
ing responsibility. For the real greatness of a nation must be measured against
the wejilth, not of its riches't citizens, but of its pooi-est.
In closing, may I remind you of tlie famous colloquy in ancient Athens where
an Athenian citizen asked one of the political leaders the same question we
are asking here today: "When will there be justice in Athens?'' The famous
reply : "We will have justice in Athens only when those who have not suffered
injustice are as outi*aged as those who have."
Only a sense of outrage can generate sufficient concern and action to reform
our criminal justice system. Let America be the master of outrage by acting on
it to secure justice in our courts instead of being the victim of outrage by suffer-
ing violence in our Streets.
Attachment :
District Attorney's Office,
Philadelphia, Pa., April SO, 1913.
To the Honorable, the Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly:
With this letter, I am sending on to you copies of two proposed bills.
These proposals relate to procedures on sentencing in criminal cases.
I think the passage of this legislation would be significant in moving us closer
to solving the problem of violent crime.
I very much urge your support of these bills.
Sincerely,
Aelex Specter.
Summary of Attached Proposals ox Sextencing
In September 1968, this OflSce suggested to the Task Force on Courts of the
Pennsylvania Crime Commission a proposed "Act Permitting Review of Sen-
tences in Criminal Cases." This proposal was subsequently introduced for pas-
sage in the State General Assembly in 1969 as Senate Bill 77 and House Bill 2419,
The bill remained before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate during 1970 and
was reintroduced in 1971.
This proposed Act provided that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania would appoint five judges of the Courts of Common Pleas in Penn-
sylvania to act as a Special Court of Review on sentences imposed by any Court
of Common Pleas in the state. The Act allowed for this appellate review of sen-
tences on the application of either the defendant or the Commonwealth. Its aim
was to provide specific guidelines and better uniformity in the sentencing process.
After the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v.
Silverman, 442 Pa. 211 (1971), this Office revised its legislation to reflect the
Supreme Court's Opinion. The result was the submission of the Sentencing
Review Act of 1972, which was substantially similar to the attached Sentencing
Review Act.
This bill would completely revamp the procedures for sentencing criminal
defendants by establishing a statewide Sentencing Board comprised of 24 experts
from a number of different disciplines. This Board would evaluate and classify
the background and psychological condition of each defendant and then more
proi)erly dispo.se of his case. This Board would set the minimum and maximum
sentences in any case where a defendant is convicted of a crime punishable by
imprisonment in a state penitentiary for a period longer than five years.
A companion bill to this legislation would revoke the right to bail after con-
viction of certain serious felonies by giving the trial judge the authority to
coumiit the defendant to prison pending the imi>ositions of sentence. This second
propos-ed statute would also allow the court, in any case, to impose sentence
immediately upon determination of guilt, so that a convicted defendant, in the
discretion of the court, would not have an absolute right to bail iJending a sep-
arate sentence hearing. This legislation was first proposed for passage in the
1002
General Assembly in 1970 and has been resubmitted by this Office in each
subsequent year.
Proposed Statute for Immediate Sentencing or Commitment After Conviction
The court may. in its discretion, impose sentence immediately upon a deter-
mination of guilt. The imposition of sentence shall not alter the defendant's
right to file post-convicti(m motions as heretofore. The time for appeal shall be
computed from the date the court rules on the final post-conviction motion.
After a determination of guilt, the court may. in its discretion, commit the de-
fendant to prison pending the imposition of sentence for the following crimes :
murder in the second degree, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaugliter.
robbery, rape, burglary, kidnapping, mayhem, aggravated assault and battery,
assault with intent to kill, breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony,
sale of narcotics or dangerous drugs, and larcency.
Sentencing Review Act of 1973
sectio 1. board established powers and duties generally
There shall be and there is hereby established an independent administratlA-e
board which shall determine the minimum and maximum limits of imprison-
ment if not maudatoiy as provided by law for all persons convicted of a crime
and sentenced by any court of this Commonweallh to an indeterminate period
of imprisonment longer than five years. The administrative board shall be known
as the Pennsylvania Sentencing Board and shall herein be referred to as the
"Board".
Subject to the provisions of this act. the Board shall have all the powers and
shall perform the duties generally vested in and imposetl upon independent ad-
ministrative boards and commissions by the act, approved the ninth day of
April, one thousand nine hundred twenty nine (Pamphlet Laws, one hundred
seventy seven, designated as the "Administrative Code of 1929"), and its amend-
ments, and shall be subject to all the i)rovisions of such code which apply gen-
erally to independent administrative boards and commissions.
SECTION 2. MEMBERS ; APPOINTMENT ; TERM ; CHAIRMAN ; VACANCIES
The Board shall be composed of 24 members, each of whom shall be appointed
by the Governor, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate, for a
term of four years and until the appointment and (lualification of his successor.
However, each of the first twelve members shall be appointed for a six year term.
Members shall be eligible for reappointment.
The Chairman of the Board shall be designated from time to time. Tlie Chair-
man shall be the administrative head of the Board and shall exercise all duties
and functions necessary to insure that the responsibilities of the Board are
successfully discharged. He shall l»e the appointing authority for all positions
of emjiloyment by the Board. During the absence or incapacity of the Chairman,
the remainiixg Board inem])ers l)y majority vote shall designate an acting chair-
man who shall assume the full duties of Chairman in his absence.
Persons appointed to the Board shall have a broad background in and ability
for appraisal of law offenders and the cii-cumstances of the offense for which
convicted. Insofar as practicable members shall be selected who have a varied
interest in corrections work including but not limited to persons, widel.v experi-
enced in the fields of correction.^, sociology, law, law enforcement, and education.
SECTION o. OFFICE
The principal office of the Board shall be in Harrisburg and the Board shall
appoint and employ therein the necessary employees to carry out the fiinctions
of this act. The salaries of persons so appointed and employed shall he 'fixed by
the Board. The Board may with the consent of the Governor establish a suitnl)le
number of dis'trict offices, not to exceed four, to facilitate the exercise of the
Board's responsibilities'. The Board shall appoint and employ therein the neces-
sarv emnloyees to carry out the functions of this act. The Board 'is hereby
anthori7ed and empowered to enter into contrncts on behalf of the Common-
wealth for such office accommodations, furniture, equipment and supplies as
needed to carry out its duties through the Department of Property and Supplies.
1003
,. , SECTION 4. SALAKY ; KXPENSES
The Chairman of the Board shall receive a salary of eighteen thousand dollars
(.$1.S,(I00) i)er annum and each of the (»ther members of the Board shall receive
a salary of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000) per annum. Each memlier of the
lioard shall receive his actual necessary travelling expenses incurred in tlie
pertVtrmance of his official duties.
SECTION 5. QfORU>t
Excei)t as herein otherwise provided a quorum .shall consist of no less than
twelve members <»f the Board.
SECTION C. OFFICIAL SEAL
The Board shall adopt an official seal by which its acts and proceedings shall
be authenticated and of which the courts shall take judicial notice. The certifi-
cate of the Chairman of the Board, under the seal of the Board and attested by
the .secretary, shall be accepted in evidence in any judicial proceeding in any
court of this Commonwealth as adecpnite and sufficient proof of the acts and
proceedings of the Board therein certified to.
SECTION 7. organization; SECRETARY
As soon as may be convenient after their appointment the members of the
P>oard shall meet and organize. They shall appoint a secretary, who shall not be
a member of the Board who shall hold office at their pleasure, who shall have
such powers and perform such duties not inconsistent with any law of this
Commonwealth as the Board shall prescribe, and who shall receive such com-
pensation as the Board shall determine in conformity with the rules of the
Executive Board. In the absence or incapacity of the secretary to act the Board
may designate such other person as it may choose to perform temporarily the
duties of secretary.
SECTION 8. INVESTIGATION OR CIRCUAfSTANCES OF OFFENSE AND CHARACTER AND
HISTORY- OF PRISONER ; HEARINGS
The Board shall meet at the state correctional institutions or other locati(ms
at such times as may be necessary for a full and complete study of the cases of
all i)risoners whose terms of imprisonment are to be determined by the Board.
For the purjioses of determining terms of imprisonment of prisoners the Board
may meet in panels. Each panel shall consist of at least three members of the
Board.
The panel uiK)n receipt of a prisoner's court records shall set a date for a
hearing. The hearing shall be schetluled no later than ninety days after the
sentence has l>€en imposetl and service of the sentence commenced. The hearing
shall take place at a location to be determined by the Board which shall be
designed to effect the greatest convenience for all parties concerned.
Ten days notice of the time and location for the hearing shall be given in writ-
ing to the prisoner, the prosecuting attorney and the trial judge. The prisoner
may be repre.sented by coiuisel at the hearing. Counsel for either the prisoner
or the prosecution may present evidence and may make recommendations. The
trial judge may submit his recommendation to the panel in writing prior to the
hearing. The proceedings at the hearing shall be stenographically recorded in
their entireties. At the termination of the hearing the panel by majority vote
shall establish the terms of the prisoner's sentence and shall remit the prisoner
to the cu.stody of the C<n-rectional Diagnostic and Classification Center desig-
nated by the Commission of Corrections to receive the prisoner.
SECTION !). COURT TO TRANSMIT RECORDS TO BOARD
It shall be the duty of any court sentencing any person for an indeterminate
term greater than five years to furnish the Board, within thirty days of imposi-
tion of such sentence, a full and complete copy of the record upon which the
sentence was imposed including any notes of testimony which are of record, to-
gether with the prior criminal history of the person and any presentence inves-
tigation reports or p.sychiatric reports which may have been prepared. The latter
1004
two reports being confidential shall only be made available to the Board members
and counsel for any sentenced person as well as the prosecuting attorney. Uixjn
the Board's determining the terms of imprisonment the record along with the
independent findings of the Board shall be transferred to the Board of Parole
whicli shall upon receipt of the record be responsible for its safe-keeping. If
prior to tiie imposition of sentence the Court shall not have ordered a presentence
investigation report and a psychiatric evaluation it shall be the duty of said
court. The prisoner shall be housed in the appropriate county prison until the
and examinations are ito be prepared by qualified personnel employed by the
court. The prisoner shall be housed in the appropriate county prison until the
necessary data for tlie reix)rts has been collected at which time he shall be trans-
ferred to the appropriate state correctional institution. The data must be col-
lected and the prisoner transferred to the state institution within ten (10) days
of the date that the sentence is effected.
SECTION 10. COMPUTATION OF MULTIPLE SENTENCES
■'■ ■ >
Whenever a person shall be convicted of more than one crime and where one
of the crimes shall be subject to the action of the Board, the Board shall set a
maximum limit of imprisonment not greater than the total maximum limits of
the sentences imposed and a minimum limit not greater than the total of the
minimum limits for the sentence imposed.
SECTION 11. KECORDS TO BE KEPT BY THE BOARD
It shall be the duty of the Board to keep records of all actions of the Board.
The Board each year shall submit to the Governor, the Attorney Gteneral, and
the several District Attorneys a report indicating its action with regard to each
prisoner brought before the Board and stating in brief the basis for the action.
SECTION 12. REMOVAL AND SUSPENSION OF EMPLOYEES
No employee of the Board, except the secretary, shall be removed, discharged
or reduced in pay or position, except for cause, and only after giving him the
reasons therefor in writing and affording him an opportunity to be heard in
answer thereto : Provided, however, that an employee may be suspended with-
out pay and without hearing for a period not exceeding thirty days, but the rea-
son or reasons for such suspension shall be given to the employee by the Board
in writing; And provided further, that successive suspensions of the same
employee under the power hereby granted shall not be made.
SECTION 13. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES
No member of the Board, or officer, clerk or employee thereof, or any person
officially connected therewith, shall take any active part in politics or be a
member of or delegate or alternate to any political convention or be present at
such convention, except in the performance of his official duties hereunder. No
member of the Board, officer, clerk or employee thereof, or any person officially
connected therewith, shall serve as a member of or attend the meetings of any
committee of any political party, or take any part in political management or
political campaigns, or use his office to influence political movements, or to in-
fluence the action of any other officer, clerk or employee of said Board. No
member of the Board, officer, clerk or employee thereof, or any person officially
connected therewith, shall in any way or manner interfere with or participate
in the condiict of anv election or the preparation therefor at the polling place, or
with the election officers while counting the votes or returning the I)allot boxes,
books, papers, election paraphernalia and machinery to the place provided by
law. or be within any polling place, save only for the purpose of voting as speed-
ily as it reasonably can be done, or be otherwise within fifty feet thereof, except
for purposes of ordinary travel or residence during the period of time begin-
ning with one hour preceding the opening of the polls for holding the election
and ending with the time when the election officers shall have finished counting
the votes and have left the polling place. No member of the Board, officer, clerk
or employee thereof, or any person officially connected therewith, shall directly
or indirectly make or give, demand or solicit, or be in any manner concerned
in making, giving, demanding, soliciting or receiving any assessments, subscrip-
tions or contributions, whether voluntary or involnntary, to any political party
or for any political purpose whatsoever. Any person or persons who shall violate
1005
anj' of the provisions of this section shall he guilty of a misdemeanor, and,
upon conviction thereof, be punished l)y a line not exceeding five hundred dollars
($500) and imprisonment not exceeding one year, either or both, in the discre-
tion of the court, and in addition thereto, shall forfeit his oflice or employment,
as the case nuiy be, and shall not thereafter be appointed or employed by the
Board in any i)ositiou or capacity whatsoever. It shall be the duty of the Board
to dismiss from his oflice or employment any officer, clerk or employee thereof
who shall violate this section.
SECTION 14. OTHER OFFICE, BUSINESS OK EMPLOYMENT ; EEMOVAL OB SUSPENSION
The members of the Board shall not hold any other public oflice or employment,
nor engage in any business, profession or employment during their terms of
service as members thereof, and shall hold their oflices during the terms for
which they shall have been appointed, if they shall so long behave themselves
well. A member of the Board may be removed by the Governor, by and with the
advice and consent of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate. During a re-
cess of the Senate the Governor may suspend a member of the Board for cause,
and before susi>ension he shall furnish to such member a statement in writing
of the reasons for his proposed suspension, and such suspension shall operate
and be effective only until the adjournment of the next session of the Senate
following such suspension.
SECTION 15. USE OF FACILITIES
The Board in the performance of its duties shall utilize as needed the resources
of the Board of Parole, the Department of Welfare and the diagnostic and treat-
ment facilities of the state correctional institutions.
SECTION 16. LEGISLATIA'E PURPOSE
It shall be the purpose of this Board in the exercise of its duties to establish
terms of imprisonment which both reflect consideration of the protection of so-
ciety as well as the rehabilitation of the prisoner. Prior to fixing the terms of im-
prisonment the Board shall undertake a complete study of the circumstances of
tlie crime and the complete history of the iirisoner.
SECTION 17. SENTENCE FOR INDEFINITE TERM; RELEASE ON PAROLE; RIGHT OF
COMMUTATION
"Whenever any person, convicted in any court of this Commonwealth of any
crime punishable by imprisonment in a State Penitentiary for a period not longer
than five years, shall be sentenced to imprisonment therefor in any penitentiary
or other institution of this State, or in any county or municipal institution, the
court, instead of pronouncing upon such convict a definite or fixed term of
imprisonment, shall pronounce upon such convict a sentence of imprisonment for
an indefinite term : Stating in such sentence the minimum and maximum limits
thereof ; and the maximum limit thereof shall never exceed the maximum time
now or hereafter prescribed as a penalty for such offense ; and the minimum
limit shall never exceed one-half of the maximum sentence prescribed by any
court.
Whenever any person is convicted in any court of this Commonwealth of any
crime punishable by imprisonment in a State penitentiary for a period longer than
five years as prescribed by law, the Court shall, unless such convicted person is
granted a new trial or if sentence is suspended, sentence the person to be impris-
oned in a state correctional institution but the coui't shall not set the minimum
and maximum limits thereof unless a mandatoi-y minimum or maximum limit
is .specifically prescribed by law. The minimum and maximum limits shall be
set by the Pennsylvania Sentencing Board within 90 days of the execution of
sentence unless mandatory minimum or maximum is specifically prescribed by
law, but in any event the maximum limit shall not be greater than that authorized
liy law and the minimum shall not be greater than half the maximum limit set
by the Board.
Whenever any person is convicted of any crime punishable by simple imprison-
ment, the court may, in its discretion, pronounce a sentence either for a fixed
term or for an indefinite term, as may seem proper under the circumstances of
the case, but in no case to exceed the maximum term prescribed by law as a
penalty for such offense :
1006
Provided that nothing lierein contained sliall be construed to derogate from
the power of tlie judges of the courts of quarter sessions and of the courts
of oyer and terminer, or other coui't of record having jurisdiction, of the several
judicial districts of the Commonwealth, after due inquiry, to release on parole
any convict confined in the county jail, house of correction, or workliouse of
their respective districts, as provided in section one of an act, approved the
nineteenth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and eleven (Pamphlet
Laws, one thousand fifty-nine), entitled '"An act extending the powers of judges
of courts of quarter sessions and of oyer and terminer, in relation to re-
leasing prisoners in jails and workhouses on parole," its amendments and for
an indeterminate term not longer than five years shall be entitled to any bene-
fits under the act, entitled "An act providing for the commutation of sentences
for good behavior of convicts in prisons, penitentiaries, workhouses, and county
jails in this State, and i-egulations governing the same," approved the eleventh
day of May, Anno Domini one thousand nine hundred and one ;
And provided further, that, before any parole shall be granted pursuant to the
terms hereof, notice of an intention so to do shall be given, at least ten days
prior thereto, by the Board of prison inspectors to the judge of the county who
imposed the sentence, if he be still in ofiiee, but otherwise to the judge or judges
of the court of oyer and terminer or the court of quarter sessions then in session.
or if there be no current term, then to the next ensuing term thereof, and having
jurisdiction of cases of the like character. Similar notice shall also be given
to the District Attorney then in office in said county.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Counsel, would you call the next witness.
Mr. NoLDE. Mr. Justice Ross, would you come forward, please.
Mr. Rangel would like to introduce tlie Avitness, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rangel. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I asked for the opportunity to introduce to this committee ]Mr.
Justice Ross, who has 20 years of outstanding public services to tlie
city and State of New York, including experience as a member of the
New York State Assembly. Mr. Justice Ross is a member and majoi-ity
leader of the New York City Council of Justices of the supreme court,
administrative justice of the criminal court system, and now is the
administrative justice of the supreme court.
Not only has he made a valuable contribution in both the judicial
and legislative areas he has served, I think Justice Ross is best known
in the city and State of New York as being a compassionate, under-
standing individual, and it is indeed a pleasure for me to have an
opportunity to be here on this committee as he tries to share with us
the policies that have led to his great success, as well as the frustrations
he has had in our court system. And, certainly, since he has been
administrator, we have had more successes than we have had in the
past.
Chairman Pepper. Judge Ross, we are very much pleased to have
you here. Thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID ROSS, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE.
CRIMINAL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK; ACCOMPANIED
BY LESTER GOODCHILD, EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Judge Ross. Thank you very much.
Congressman Rangel, thank a^ou for your very kind remarks, and
honorable members of this committee.
On January 1 of 1971, by direction of my superiors, I took over
the administration of the criminal court of the city of New York.
Now, that court is part of the unified court system of the State. It
operates in the five counties comprising the city. We are authorized
1007
98 judjtjes and approximately 1,100 pm])loyees. just about all of whom,
with the exception of pei'liaps two, are civil service.
The gentleman to my left, Mr. lister Goodchild, who is from the
couit system, is my executive officer and directly responsible for seeing
to it that all of my administrative mandates and memorandums ai'e
carried out.
That court, gentlemen, handles every single arrest that takes place
in the city of Xcav York, whether it be as insignificant as smoking in
the subway— and believe me, we get those; I don't know why, but we
do — right up to the most atrocious robberies, rapes, and homicides.
If the matter remains a misdemeanor, then it stays in that court for
its ultimate disposition, whether it be by plea, trial, acquittal, what-
ever the facts happen to be.
If it is a felony, we have the responsibility, unless, of course, defense
waives a heaiing to send the case directly to the grand juiy or con-
ducting a felony hearing on it. Should the matter survive the hearing
as a felony, it then goes to the grand jury.
From there it goes, if there is an indictment returned, to the crimi-
nal branch of the supreme court and, as of March — as of March 5 of
this year — I was again designated by Mr. Justice Stevens, our pre-
siding justice of our api)ellate division, to take over the administration
of the cnminal branch of the supreme court in addition to other duties.
On January 1, 1971, the criminal court of the city of New York had
a backlog of approximately 60,000 cases. The reason I say 60,000 is
that we have no conception of what we had there. So we had a hand
count, and when we reached 60,000, gentlemen, in all honesty, I di-
rected them to stop counting because I went into shock.
We now avei-age a caseload of about 16,000 cases per month, which
is less than 1 month's intake. We average on a monthly basis from a
low of 15,000 arrests to a high of about 20,000 arrests. Those judges sit
in 11 different buildings around the city, and since the Supreme Court
of the United States came down with the last directive on jury trials,
they conduct juiy trials.
And today I can say without fear of contradiction by anyone, the
largest criminal court — and I don't say this as a matter of pride; I
say it as a matter of volume — is totally current.
The budget for this court, gentlemen, for the city of New York, is
$14.8 million. We return to the city of New York, in fines, the sum of
$11 million-plus. I will refer to an analysis that was done of our court
by the accounting firm of Peat, Marwick & Mitchell, not by our re-
quest, not that we can afford them, but by the request of the Economic
Development Council of the City of New York, and they have come
to the conclusion that our increased productivity has saved the city
of New York somewhere in the nature of $6.5 million per year as a
continuing savings.
So if you take that, plus the fines we have been delivering back to the
city treasury, we don't cost the city a dime to operate. We are not in
the business of making money, but, in fact, the city has been making
a profit on us. I haven't been successful, gentleman, in convincing the
city fathers to return that money into the court for its own operation.
In addition, there was a raging battle for about a year in New York
City — I am sure Congressman Rangel is very well awai-e of it as he
was involved in it — w^hether we should or should not build additional
95-158— 73— pt. 3 4
1008
prison facilities within the city. The criminal justice coordinating
counsel and this accounting firm came to the conclusion that our
increased productivity has resulted in a one-shot savings to the city
in capital funds of $48 million, the price of one prison.
Gentlemen, what I am talking about here is approximately $45,000-
to SoO.OOO per bed. and the most expensive construction in the world.
So I think before we jump to build these great prison fortresses and
take in inexperienced youngsters and produce real hard-nosed tough
guj'S, that we have got to think in terms of using this money more in-
telligently. The correctional system, gentlemen — I can only speak for
the State of New York — doesn't work. It doesn't correct; it doesn't
rehabilitate,
Mr. Chairivian. I was listening to your questions. Do we get them
back? Absolutely. It gets to the point where sometimes older judges,
who have been around a lot longer than I, have started to recognize
some defendants they had 6 and 8 years ago. But some of the nonsense
you contend with is, "Send the man to jail in my State and we will teach
him to be a barber." And up until a couple of years ago, he couldn't get
a license to be a barber when he came out of j ail.
We put him to work manufacturing license plates for automobiles.
Wei], there is no such occupation in civil life. He manufactures on the
inside, but once he gets outside, we unfortunately, get him on another
charge.
We can teach him to be a carpenter, plumber, electrician, but he can't
get a union card. And if he can't get a union card, you can't be a
carpenter, plumber, or electrician in my town because they will shut
the job down. So I think we are all responsible. "When I say "we," I
mean our entire society.
I think what we have been most responsible for, what I consider the
biggest sin of all : The sin of nonfeasance. We have ignored the problem
of rehabilitation. We have ignored it because the only people concerned
other than those in the field as professionals would be the mother or
father of the defendant, or the victim who was injured. But the indi-
vidual families who are not victims or a defendant, they weren't
interested.
You know, narcotics is a new problem in the last several years in the
United States. Narcotics has been a problem to me, gentlemen, since
1951 when I was first elected to the State legislature, because I rep-
resented the southeastern portion of Bronx County, which was a very
low-income area then and is still a low-income area now. Narcotics
was a problem there in 1951.
As Congressman Rangel would recall, we couldn't sell that to any-
one until it became a problem in the suburban areas. Narcotics, so far
as using is concerned, is not a problem of the ghetto alone ; it is a uni-
versal problem. Then, for the first time, government, and profession-
als, got involved.
In our court, gentlemen, in January 1971, when I took over, we had
in detention about 3,500 prisoners awaiting disposition. As of January
1973, we had only 1,315 defendants awaiting trial.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me. Judge. We wiU have to excuse our-
selves and go over to the floor and vote. We will be back in a few
minutes.
[A brief recess was taken.]
1009
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
Judge, you may proceed.
Judge Ross. Thank you.
Just to briefly finish on my statistics and then perhaps, if I may, try
to explain to you how we think we have accomplished some of this.
In January of 1971 the average duration of a case in the criminal
court of the city of New York, from the moment of arraignment
through disposition was 8.91 weeks, approximately 9 weeks. As of the
close of January 1973 the average duration was 3.3 weeks. We have
cut that time by two-thirds.
Now, in order to accomplish that we had to reduce the inordinate
delay that is automatically built in by long adjournments. In January
of 1971 the average adjournment in my court was 4.45 weeks. We have
cut that to 1.38 weeks. The average adjournment. That is bail and jail
cases both now average 1.38 weeks.
Many things had to be done to reach this point and the first thing
I decided to do
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me. What was that : 1.38 ?
Judge Ross. 1.38 weeks is now the average length of_adjournment
granted in any court.
Chairman Pepper. What do you mean by "adjournment" ? You mean
ad j ournment of cases ?
Judge Ross. Individual matters, the lawyer isn't ready, the dis-
trict attorney isn't ready.
Chairman Pepper. I see.
Judge Ross. Or counsel hasn't been paid ; he has a missing witness.
One thing we told the lawyers immediately, "Gentlemen, you will
have to get your fees up front. Mr. Green, as a missing witness, is no
longer an acceptable excuse in the criminal court of the city of New
York."
The lawyers screamed, the district attorney screamed. We did it
and today they tell us it is fine. It is a question of turning people around
after a lifetime of habits which aren't always good habits.
It wasn't really that difficult, insofar as the professionals in the
profession are concerned. I find lawyers are very adaptable people.
You know, we learn the law, we think we are experts, and the next
day the U.S. Supreme Court changes it all. We don't get hysterical.
We may be critical, but that is our privilege. But we conform and, after
all, judges are just law3'ers, too, who made it.
The first thing that I noticed was that all of the ancillary serv-
ices— and when I speak of the criminal justice system ancillary serv-
ices, I am referring to the district attorneys, defense counsel, Legal
Aid Societj', police departments, the department of probation, the
department of corrections, the psychiatric hospitals where our exami-
nations are conducted — all operated as if the other agencies didn't
exist. If any one of these agencies fails to fulfill its obligation, the
court must falter. If the department of corrections cannot deliver a
prisoner to my judge on time, we can't move his case.
If the district attorney isn't prepared, he won't move the case. If the
defense counsel isn't prepared, he wants an adjournment.
I then convinced my judges that before 1 liad a right to demand
better service from the ancillary services, they had to first render
better service. I made them a promise, which I have kept, that should
1010
the judge in any instance be criticized and it is correct, we will make
a change. If the criticism is unjustified, I will personally reply for
him.
I have done that. You see, it is very easy for a reporter to walk into
a courtroom at 10:30 in the morning and if a bench is empty assume
the judge isn't working. The fact of tlie matter may be he was there
at 9 :30 a.m. but the prisoners liaA^en't been delivered. Counsel hasn't
shown. The Bellevue report, psychiatric report, isn't back. If it is a
narcotics case, the police laboratory hasn't finished their analysis.
I decided that none of these would be acceptable excuses and I made
my judges give me their word — and they did — they would mount the
bench at 9:30 a.m. It was my responsibility to get the otlier ancillary
services there. We met with the ancillary services, individually and
collectively, and we let them know in no uncertain terms what they
had to expect of me but certainly what I demanded of them. Again, they
were professionals, they screamed a little bit; but we get our prison-
ers, basically, on time. In fact, I get a repoi-t every morning from all
65 of my trial parts in the criminal court and all 42 of my trial pai'ts in
the supreme court, setting forth the time wlien the first prisoner was
available to the court.
And in any instance in which it is beyond 9 :30 a.m., a copy of that
goes directly with a note from me to the commissioner of corrections.
In order to conform the profession, we instituted what we call, for
want of a better term, "sanctions."' I had our appellate division, I
needed their authority for it, and they gave it to me. Under our sanc-
tions we recommend to the judge that if a defendant is incarcerated,
and a request is made for an adjournment, a proper request, that that
judge think in terms of an adjournment not to exceed 5 days. After
all, this is an incarcerated defendant and he might be innocent. As of
this moment there has been no determination of guilt or innocence.
And he certainly has the presumption we all have in America.
We further pointed out to him, if this defendant is incarcerated in
excess of 12 days, that he think in terms of 2 days as a sufficient ad-
journment. In a bail case, we suggest he think in terms of a maximum
of 2 weeks.
We then instructed the judge, in every instance where an attorney
doesn't show, or is late, and for want of an acceptable excuse — and we
list the acceptable excuses : Illness ; death in the family ; police officer,
for example on another arrest — but for want of an acceptable excuse,
if a lawyer doesn't a])pear he receives a letter from one of my super-
vising judges. I ap]:)ointed one in each county as my direct represent-
ative, and the first letter is a very gentle letter informing him of my
great desire to bring the criminal justice svstem into the 20th century.
We need his cooperation as an officer of the court; we are sure there
is an explanation as to why he didn't appear. But the last paragraph
requires him to respond as to the reasons why.
And invariably, as we predicted, the letter would come back, "Sorry
about that, Judge. My secretary inadvertently entered it on the wrong
page."
I wasn't shocked. I used that excuse 25 years ago, for want of a better
one. But the second time it doesn't happen. No lawyer wants to receive
a letter from a judge which might be preparatory to a disciplinary
proceeding.
1011
Now. we are not in the business of hiirtin<2: lawyers. We are lawyers.
I made my livelihood as a laAV3'er for a lon<>- time. And that hasn't
arisen, with the exception of two or three, who perhaps shouldn't be
practicinc: in our town because of their personal problems.
You get total compliance. If that lawyer is going to be 15 minutes
late, he makes sure the clerk in that part gets a message from him. So
at least when the calendar is called, the clerk is in position to say,
"Your Honor, Counselor Jones called. Would you please hold the case
for a second call."
I also noticed at the very inception of my administration there that,
at my arraignment parts, a tremendous amount of cases were being
dismissed on the motion of the district attorney. It sounded something
like — like a liturgy. You couldn't understand the first few lines, but
the last line said, "'Therefore, I move to dismiss."
I didn't know what was going on. so I inquired. These are called in
Xew York City. '"SIB's," because the form is No. 343. This would be
an instance in which a police officer makes an arrest, walks into the dis-
trict attorney's complaint room, and as he walks in — I am sure Con-
gressman Rangel is way ahead of me because he has been exposed to it —
he calls out to the district attorney, "I have a 343."
The arresting officer is already telling the district attorney "I have
an arrest that is not worthy of prosecution."
Now, of course, the question is. Why did he make the arrest? A very
simple answer. He gets credit for arrests, not for convictions. I guess
in that numbers game you play you need x amount of "collars" to use
the police parlance. Otherwise, he hasn't done his function.
The present commissioner and I have gone around and around on
that one many a time. Give me one peddler of heroin in kilo lots as
against a thousand nickel-bag junkies. But to get that one felon, the
l)ol iceman who is working that case can't be bringing in his 20 or 30
arrests a month. That case may take a year of high-class investigation.
I say it IS worth it. We know it is worth it because, in the last few
months, the last year in New York City, we have had periods of heroin
diying up on the streets because 6 months prior the Federal task force
and local combined task force, has made major arrests of large volumes
of heroin.
It takes a few months to have an eifect in the street. That is why,
Congressman Rangel, you may have read in the paper a few months
ago that cocaine and methadone became the popular item in Queens
County because apparently the big haul that was destined to go to
Queens County, whatever the operation was by the people doing it,
was intercepted by the task force. It was a multikilo lot.
I then sat down with the five district attorneys and told them they
wei-e wasting too mucli of my court's time on this trivia. I demanded
that they stop going through all of the administration of a 343. where
the policeman says there is no case, prepare the same affidavits and the
same complaints as you would for the most troublesome crime, then
(locket it in my court, and then at tlie arraignment, stand up and move
to dismiss on the gi-ounds there isn't sufficient evidence.
Vrdl, the district attorneys were a little leary aliout that one. I
then went to the a])i)ellate division and received a directive from the
a])penate division that the disti'ict attorneys are to fulfill their con-
stitutional ol)ligations I'ight in the complaint i-oom and refuse to honor
1012
the arrest. If it is a 343, it is out. That took approximately 10 percent
of my caseload out of my arraignment part.
Wlien you are talking in terms of 250,000 arrests, that is a lot of
work. What I was trying to do was reach the important cases.
We then instituted a practice which we called "front loading." As
I said when I first started, we get everything from smoking on the sub-
yvny to homicide. A good experienced judge — and we developed a
team of Avhat I call "arraignment judges," and it is not instant ex-
pertise; it is a lifetime of experience — can look at a set of papers and
he knows that 6 weeks from now, back in the trial part, this defend-
ant is going to plead and probably get 6 months because that is all it
is worth ; or 3 months, or a year, or probation.
Now, if those are the facts, I want my judges doing that riglit at
the original arraignment and save all of the bookkeeping — perhaps
the incarceration of the defendant who sliouldn't be incarcerated —
save all of the work and administration that goes in carrying calen-
dars from day to day. and have the same end result.
These are not dismissals we are talking about, these are convictions.
In the city of New York, ai)proximately one-third of our entire calen-
dar in the criminal court is disposed of at the first appearaiice, and
l)roperly so. These are the $2 fine cases. $25 fine cases, 30-day sen-
tences, the probation, the withdrawal of com]ilaints by getting people
to shake hands, because not all persons coming into my system are
ci'iminals. Some are next-door neighbors. Someone makes a com-
plaint because his neighbor plays his stereo too loud. He receives a
summons but we have to treat him with the same dignity as any other
person who comes to my court. He is entitled to it, but there is no rea-
son to drag those cases through our system for months at a time.
So my arraignment judge disposes of it up front. Incidentally. I
was very interested in what the last speaker said. I didn't hear him
out. In New York, a judge cannot reduce a charge without the district
attorney's consent. So if a defendant is brought in under a complaint
that reads as felonious assault, for example, my judge can't reduce
that to a simple assault, a misdemeanor, in the absence of a hearing
unless the district attorney consents. So we have this balance and
counterbalance.
The district attornev isn't interested in giving away his good cases.
He wants his wins. We judges couldn't care less what the end residt is,
whether it is conviction or acquittal. We are referees. We don't win
when the district attornev gets a conviction, or lose when there is an
acquittal. That is not our function. A lot of people, including the news
media, seem to forget that.
I have been asked to respond to a policeman's protest; that we
weren't supporting the police. I told them it is not our function to
support the police: not as a judge. As a private citizen, that is another
story. As a judge I am there to referee the ball game. If I see a foul.
I blow the whistle, and if the home teain doesn't like it they can "boo"'
me and call me dirtv names; but that is what my responsibility is.
We are getting the police a little trained to that now. Thev found
out, as Congressman Rangel knows, they get instant calls. They had
l>etter be right before they criticize. Because it is historical throughout
the country, that the judiciary doesn't answer back. We don't get
involved in public controversy, and we shouldn't. But when Judge
1013
Stevens asked me 214 years ago to take over the criminal court, I only
had one condition that I asked him for. I said, "Harold, if my couit
is criticized unfair!}', I want the ri<>ht to respond and tell the truth."
Xow, courts have not done this. As a result, the story is always a
distorted story because if it is one sided, it is unilateral, it can't be
factually correct. Certainly not the way I have been brought up.
Xow, the sanctions haA'e worked. The front loading has worked.
Then we came to the problem of how do we reduce the time between
arraignment and disposition. It is in the system. I listened to the pre-
vious speaker talking about getting the cases before the right judge.
For 21/^ years in Xew York City, all of my parts have been what we
call "all purpose parts," which means when that case goes before that
judge, and we pull them out like a jury box wheel, the first case out
goes to part 1, 2, 3. Each one gets his calendar. And that case stays with
that judge until that case is completed.
A defendant has motions. He can make anv application he wishes
and we will handle it for him right up front. We will take a court trial
for liim in our arraignment part, in our calendar part.
If he asks for a hearing, that will be conducted by the judge, that
same judge. If it goes to trial, it will be before that same judge. We
have done away with judge shopping in the criminal court in the city
of Xew York because no matter how many times jow adjourn that case
you will come back and find the same judge sitting there. So you can't
look for the tough giiy, the easy guy, depending on what side you
are on.
One thing I would like to indicate is that judge shopping is not
unique to the defense counsel. Prosecutors are great at that, too. It is
not a unilateral thing. We get it on both sides. We have done away
with that in the criminal court of the city of Xew York. Once that case
is in that part that lawyer has to anticipate, no matter when he comes
back, that same judge is sitting. So if there is to l>e a proper disposition,
you might as well do it now, because you are not going to get a better
break or the district attorney won't get a tougher judge at a later
date. Judge shopping doesn't work in the criminal court.
Xow, we found out we were short of courtrooms. Incidental) v, 50
percent of all of my courtrooms are inadequate. They have no holding
facilities for prisoners. These courtrooms are old. Thev were built at a
time when we didn't have this great volume. Many of the courtrooms
we occupy now were originally intended for civil ]iaits. If you haven't
got a holding pen, that means that my court officer has to bring
a prisoner from a different part of the building, frequently through
tlie public corridors.
It certainly isn't the best tvi)e of security : it certainly is a tremen-
dous drain on an ali-eady understaffed personnel. Security is a terrible
problem in oui' courts.
I am short right now, by the city figures, 70 court officers — 70. That
is their figure. I reject that. By my figures. T am short almost 1.50. but
I can't get the 70, either. I am running courtrooms, ti'ving incarcerated
defendants, with two coui"t officers. It can't be done. It f'annot be done.
There are a minimum of five court officers to ever}- courtroom I'equii-ed
where you have a single defendant.
There must be one in the form of a bridge man. If you were the ]mo-
siding justice, he would be bet^veen you and the defendant. He also
1014
hands the evidence to the witness. There has got to be one seated
behind the — I am the defendant; I am incarcerated, I may just be a
tough guy. That is No. 2.
There lias got to be one at that rail that separates the public part
of the courtroom from the courtroom itself. There has got to be one
to walk the aisle where the public now sits and participates. And what
I mean by "participates," when I was a young lawyer, after the judge
said, "Quiet, gentlemen," it got quiet. Today you might have an
epithet.
There is one or two things he can do. He can say, "Arrest that man,"
and 40 men stand up in tlie courtroom. Because it has now become what
the defendants like to refer to as a '"political trial." He has got his fol-
lowei-s here and I have two court officers. I learned a long time ago you
don't commit your troops if you know you can't manage the situation.
I have two men. They can't handle 40. I can't push a buzzer and a
flying squad of reserves come running in. I have no reserves.
' And the fifth one must be at that door, both to keep people out and
to keep people in. That is with one defendant. We have multiple de-
fendants. I have trials with four and five incarcerated defendants.
Obviously, you need more court officers, and on top of this, mv court
officers now take this defendant, handcuff him, walk him through
public corridors and up steps and back to a correctional facility and
bring the next prisoner down.
It is the most atrocious, most dangerous situation. We have been
fortunate, but we have daily incidents.
One of my court officers, 2 weeks ago, in Bronx County, had his wrist
broken while he and another court officer were escorting a defendant
who had just been sentenced. Five of the defendant's friends were out
in the corridors. Someone shouted, "Let's free Jose," and so my court
officer was tram]:)led in the rush.
If it weren't for the fact that they were just in front of the district
attorney's office, where his detective squad came to their assistance, God
knows, the fellow may have been shot dead. One of my men suffered a
broken wrist.
The Government has no right to ask me to have mv uniformed force
escort incarcerated defendants through public corridors. There should
be a door there that takes them to a holding pen. Fifty percent of
my courtrooms are like that.
But I need more courtrooms. I don't know how long it takes the
Government to build a courtroom in Washington, but I know how
long it takes in New York City, and I would hate to stand on One foot
that long.
I learned there are two legal requirements in this State for a court
to be a courtroom. One, obviously, public access, and the second re-
quirement, there has to be a sign up there that says, "In God we
trust." TJiose are the two legal requirements.
We called the carpenters and asked them to build judges' benches
with casters and they folded up like a child's playpen. I hate to say
that, speaking about a judge's bench, but that is the way it folds up.
We have a poi-table jury platform with casters and a rail, and we have
a nice little podium effect for the lawyer to put his papers down.
Th.en we went scouting for rooms. And we found a couple of rooms
that could hold 40 or 50 people. We made access to the public corridor.
1015
vre put our benches in, and our sign on the wall and ran courtrooms
there.
It is not in the best interest of the image of justice. I would love to
have all beautiful courtrooms. I don't have them. And in the Ciutire
city of New York, the entire five counties, the only decent buikliug I
have is in Queens County, and that is because it is the newest. Brook-
lyn is a disaster. I have no hokling ]:)ens there. The ))uilding wliere
I maintain my own office in New York County, at 100 Center Street,
is not a courtliouse ; that is a misnomer. I share it with the corrections
department, district attorneys, probation, with computer operators.
Who else have we got there ? It is not a courthouse.
In spite of all that, the 98 judges I am authorized — incidentally, I
never have more than 95 because the appointing authority, for reasons
best known to him, always holds back a few. It really isn't the true
picture because those judges and the nonjudicial personnel have done
a heroic job. Without them, it couldn't have been done. But right now,
I have 15 of my criminal court judges on assignment to the supreme
court as acting supi-eme court justices.
I listened to all kinds of reconunendations, I want you to know that
in New York City, my court works 7 days and 7 nights a week. When'
I first took over, we had a night and weekend court in New York
County which also serviced Bronx County, and we had a night court in
Brooklyn County which also serviced Queens County. It was a disaster.
If a policeman made an arrest in the Bronx at 9 o'clock in the eve-^
ning, by the time he booked his defendant and got a complaint drawnj
and brought him down to ]Manhattan, it was 1 o'clock in the mornings
and the court had just recessed for the night.
I applied for a Federal grant and received a grant, for which I want
to thank you gentlemen, with which we opened night and weekend
court in Bronx County and Queens County. So we now have night
court working in four out of five counties. Staten Island doesn't
require it because their volume is too low.
The prisoners aren't hauled long trips by vans. I don't know what
we save the police department. They are not anxious to discuss it, but
I do know we did away with about f 5 of their vans, and 40 or 50 of the
escort officers. As for quality of justice, there is no way I know how to
put a dollar sign on the quality of justice. '
A peison who has to face the judge in the evening in Bronx County,
from 6 p.m. to 1 a.m., has a judge there. The same in Queens. Man-
hattan, Brooklyn.
Now, in most jurisdictions in my own State, you get an-ested on a
Friday afternoon, vou mav sit until Mondav morning before vou see
a judge. It may very well be a trivial, insignificant matter in which
there was no right to incarcerate the person in the first place. Of.
course, there is always the risk. I say "risk" in quotes from the police
viewpoint.
We may have an innocent person here. And to a person who isjrt
a hardened jailbird, those are not nice places to spend a coui)le of
nights. They are terrible places-
We keep our comt open 7 days and nights. ^ly arraignment ))arts
are working (^hristmas Day, July 4th, you iiame it. There is no holiday
in those: arraignment })aii:s. So any pereon ari-ested is brought to my
arraignment part which is going fi'om d:W n.m. until 1 a.m., every
1016
person arrested on any day of the year, the police liave no excuse for
not bringing him in for speedy arraignment.
You can't use the excuse that this is Christmas, there are no judges.
Nonsense. My arraigiiment parts work.
It becomes more difficult as I send more of my judges to the supreme
court to use our methods up there because when I iirst took over the
axerage judge— everyone — had to pull an assignment at night or
Aveekends. It is not a desired assignment, obviously. They were aver-
aging night and weekend assigmnents about IIU times per year. We
are up to al)out four now. We are now up to four times a year. I don't
thinlv they like it ; I haven't heard any strenuous complaints because
they get answers when they complain.
VVe have vei*^' few judges in my State — perhaps it is different in
Florida— that were drafted for the bench. AVe have no difficulty in
finding vohmteers who want to be judges.
One tiling I know, and I said this pul.ilicly, in our operation in New
York City the day when a lawyer retired by going on the bench is
gone. I don't care how hard he practices, how hard he worked at his
practice. If he comes into our system today he is going to earn his
bi-ead. He is going to work, and after awhile they love it. Because
people like to liave a sense of accomplishment.
Now, one thing that we must do, I think, in every part of the judicial
system, and we are doing it with more success, is have regular meet-
ings with the court's ancillary services. God knows I hate all of the ap-
pointments I have because they take me from my office most of the
time, but certain meetings must be held with the five district attorneys
I have to deal with, the Legal Aid Society, police department, correc-
tions department, mayor's office, because the mayor, incidentally, is the
appointing authority for the judges of the court I supervise, where I
administer, and the criminal court and supreme court, the appellate
division, which is our superior judges, the judicial conference, which
is the statewide umbrella over all of the courts in our State and, of
course, last and most important and where we have failed in the past,
is the bureau of the budget.
But we meet and meet constantly. We scream at each other. We tell
them wherein they fell down last month. They tell us wherein we fell
down last month, and they are not always wrong and I am not always
right. But we have an onging continuing dialog where everyone
must pick up their load. The minute they don't, they hear from me.
And. believe me, the minute one of my judges doesn't, I hear about it.
Because they don't let me get away with it. And the judge hears about
it.
I must say, and say it publicly and on the record, that complaints
about our judges have become quite scarce because our judges are
producing.
That is about as brief as I could make it. I do have reports if the
committee wants them. I have our first annual report which tells, in
effect, exactly what we did and how. I have my second report, for the
9 months of 1972 — I haven't completed the last 3 months of 1972. I
have the Rand Institute report, which I think might be of particular
interest to you gentlemen because my night court being federally
funded, the State of New York employed Rand to analyze and survey
and report, evaluate the night court operation.
1017
Their evaluation speaks for itself. I couldn't have written a better
one myself .
But I think I would like to point out here that our oi>eration, by
Band computation, saved 30,000 police appearances in the period of
time they evaluated. Koughly, that is worth about a million dollars.
We are talking in terms of about $30 or $35 in cost per appearance,
besides freeing police from court duty back to street duty.
Now, it is not the million I am interested in ; I am interested in the
fact I have 30,000 saved appearances when, in theory, and I hope in
practice, the patrolman is out in the street where he belongs rather
than sitting around warming the bench in any courtroom. We are doing
well in the criminal court and we did it, all of these tilings I am talk-
ing about, for very little additional cost to the community.
I intend to address myself to the same in the supreme court. There
is only one way to cut into the problem, and, I don't believe it is in the
severity of a sentence.
Sure, there may be some individual cases where the fellow says, "I
won't take the gun because if I kill someone I will be executed or I
Avill get a life sentence,'' but one thing I have learned and I am quite
certain of, to move this system into the 20th century, you don't do it by
makhig the sentence tougher and tougher because our volume doesn't
decrease.
There is one way you must do it. From the moment of arraignment
to tlie moment of dis])osition we have to make that period shorter,
shorter, shorter, and shorter. The magic words in the trial part, are
"(lentlemen, select the jury.'' You get more requests from the defend-
ant for a conference with the district attorney and the judge, for the
purpose of disposing of the matter by other than trial, by plea bar-
gaining, if you will, when you say, ''Gentlemen, select the jury."
Those are the magic words, the moment of truth. The smart district
attoniey then says, "Counsel, we will pick a jury; my offer is with-
drawn.''
If there is some conversation, we may not know about it. You may
liave offered them a reduced charge which may have been fair; I don't
knoAv. But once you say, "Gentlemen, select the jury," and when you
get to that point, you have to cut the period down, you have to reduce
tlie adjournments. You have to make people ready. Under my sanction,
if the district attorney isn't ready at the exact time and doesn't have
an adequate, acceptable excuse, I will dismiss his case. I get no kick-
backs because when he goes back to his bureau chief, or the district
attorney, and he says. "Ross just threw my case out." The district at-
torney will invariably respond to his assistant : "Good ; next time be
ready."
Chairman Peppek. May I interrupt ?
Judge Ross. Surely.
Chainnan Pepper. ITow do your courts select the jury? Do they do
what they do in some cases, they take a month or two to select a jurv?
Judge Ross. Senator, one of the biggest problems I have in the
supreme court — I don't have that in the criminal court — is the voir
dire of the jury. I have been pleading with the State legislature to turn
the voir dire over to the court.
1018
Now, we recently finished a case that made all of the newspaix^s
up in New York County, in which it took 7 weeks to select the jury and
5 weeks for the trial. My experience as a trial justice before I left the
trial bench is that in homicide cases, for example, or major felonies,
robberies, if the fellow has a bad record and a conviction goino- back
20 years, perhaps more, he may be a consistent felony and offender
facing; a life sentence. If it is a month's tiial. you can be sure 2 weeks
was spent voir-dirino- the jury.
We have a multitude of judges in Xew York who can ^•oir dire a
jury in 1 day flat and get you a totally honest and honorable and hn-
partial jury. But lawyers — and I love them, I am a lawyer — do not
question jaroi"S for the purpose of obtaining an unbiased juror. Both
sides hope to find someone partial toward their own side.
The district attorney wants a real strong ''law-and-ordea'" man; the
defense counsel wants a socially minded person who may weep, "Yes,
he did it, but he is a kid ; he is only 39 years old," you know. I don't
hate lawyers for it, believe me. I have done it thousands of times in
my life. But it has gotten to the point where I could increase my actual
trial time by about 30 to 35 percent if they would let us voir dire the
The objections to the voir dire I thinlc. ai'e incorrect. I think they
are based upon an absence of facts. But most lawyers, and God knows
I love them, they think they win their case after the selection of the
jury. I don't think it is true.
The Governor, I understand, has intioduced a bill this year, but lie
did last year, too, and it didn't prevail. Tliat was in the criminal pro-
cedure law as amended in the State of New York, but before it be-
came effective, the legislature deleted it and turned it back to counseL
I could increase bench time, trial time, on the important felonies by
about a third without adding a single soul, because it would be the
same court,' same judge, and same court per-sonnel and we wouldn't
have that inordinate delay that takes place in the selection of the jury.
This is something that the States will have to address themselves to.
You can't do it at the Federal level and it has got to come from the
State legislatures, as far as my court is concerned. I don't have high
hopes for it.
Chairman Pepper. Judge, you have indicated an opinion that Justice
Tom Clark imparts to me, which I think he has publicly expressed
on many occasions, that in order to expedite the disposition of cases
you get better results by having effective administration, such as you
"have exhibited, than you do by just adding on more judges.
Juclge Ross. That "is one of the mistakes many people are making
in the criminal justice system. That includes some of my brethern on
the bench. There are areas in which I could use a couple of judges, but
more and more trial judges is not the solution ; and let me tell you why
in simple arithmetic.
In the area where I serve. Manhattan and Bronx, where I have the
supreme court criminal branch, we have a backlog of about 8.000
felony cases. That is too much, much too nnich. If I were to add one
trial "part^ we can average, with the average trial justice, about 20
trials a year.
Chairman Pepper. How many ?
Judge Eoss. About 20. Selecti'on of jury, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
A real speed demon will get 30. So I put a speed demon in there, I put
1019
li\c in there. That is 150 more trials. That doesn't even put a scratch
on the 8,000. Wliat has got to be done is that the courts have got to
come into tlie 20th century on administration. What has got to be done
is tliat the executive branch and legislative branch have got to give us
the capacity.
Now, what I am talking about in capacity, I learned in high school
there are three equal branches of Government. That is really not so.
That is norisense. I speak as a man who spent most of his adult life
in legislative chambers as a legislator. The executive and the legisla-
tive branch control the budget; therefore, they are a little bit more
equal than the courts. Don't misunderstand me. I don't want to control
budgets, I have had enough of that for one lifetime.
But I can't go hat-in-hand every year pleading for the right to pay
my men 1 hour overtime, because they won't give it to me. The fallacy
is when they add up that overtime for the policemen and other uniform
forces of the city — corrections officers and probation officers — then
give me the capacity to work that man that extra hour. My judges
don't get overtime. This came to a head when one of my judges gets
a whole influx of new oases at 1 a.m. A big raid somewhere kept his
court going until 4 a.m. I was ready to give him a medal. My employees
were ready to go on strike. Give me the capacity to have a courtroom
with a holding pen. I can increase that calendar by a third because
once that court officer takes the prisoner out, nothing can take place
in that courtroom until he comes back with the next. I have no security.
This is without any great expenditure of funds.
l^ut there is one thing the Federal Government can do, and one thing
1 would most respectfully request this committee to consider. With the
LEAA, which has been great as far as I am concerned, I have asked
for very little and when they could help, they did. But in the area of
capital improvements, we then get involved in the formula, the locality
has to submit 50 percent. It was .50 percent.
I think they have changed it but I am not sure. If I can get the 50
percent from the city and State, I could probably get the whole thing
from the city and State. I can't get that first 50 percent to build myself
a holding pen. That is a capital improvement. And it is not for me, it is
for the department of corrections which is an ancillary service.
The second thing I w^ould like this committee to please consider with
LEAA, and I don't know whether this is a problem universally in the
country but it is a problem in the State of New York, is I decided
that sentencing was a problem. I listened to your ]:>revious speaker.
There is a disparity among judges. So I wanted my judge to meet for
2 days away from the courtrooms, at a seminar in which I would bring
other judges in from around the country and have a real exchange of
what is and what is not an apjn-opriate sentence. I had that seminar
funded by LEAA. They were most gracious.
But for me to apply to the LEAA, I must first apply to the city
agency. If they approve it, it goes to the State agency. If they approve
i t , i t goes t o the LEAA .
I can't do business that way. I have been in public office too long for
that. I first go to LEAA and find if they can ai^prove it for me. Now,
I hand carry it. Now, I am in a bi-awl with the city fathers and the
State fathers. Although the "Feds*' have already approved my request
the city and State want it done another way. I say, forget it, give me
my application, tear it up, and go l)ack to work.
1020
"What I would like the Federal Government to consider — and this is
going to bring a scream from the State government — whatever per-
centage they will allocate for the court system, that they consider that
that percentage, whether it be on the State basis or district basis, got to,
be administered by the chief judge in the State. I would much rather
do business with Stanley Field, who is the chief judge of the State
of New York, as to getting a couple of dollars to build a holding pen
than go into this fantastic bureaucracy before I can reach LEAA.
They can't give me a direct grant so T have to ask the city for it.
with all kinds of brawls and disagreements.
Chairman Pepper. You mean, the LEAA in the dispensation of
funds should allow the disposition of those funds by the chief legal
authority that is responsible for the trial system ?
Judge Ross. Yes, sir. I am not naive. T don't expect them to accept
my application directly. Someone should be in control. But if I can't
sell the chief judge in my State on what is a Avorthy improvement, then
it is not much of a worthy improvement. But when I get involved in
the city and State agency they may agree, but have different priorities.
This year their accent is on police or something else, and I go to the
State agency and get into a brawl with them because they decided,
after Attica — a State prison upnsing — that all of the money has to go
into prisons. And yet we say down here, our Congi-essmen say, x per-
cent of this money must be allocated to the courts, because if you don't
we are not going to get an equitable share.
We are judges. We don't know how to fight.
Chairman Pepper. Is LEAA giving you any support ?
Judge Ross. Oh, yes. ]My experience with LEA_A has been mag-
nificent. My complaint is not with the LEAA. It is with that built-in
layer of bureaucracy at the city and State level.
Chairman Pepper. I am concerned about how extensively over the
countiy LEAA is funding just such programs as you are administer-
ing at home.
Judge Ross. I wouldn't laiow. My experiences with LEAA, Mr.
Nardozza in the Xew York regional office and Henry Dolgen and
his staff, have been gi-eat. But you have to put it through the city and
State.
Chairman Pepper. Have you other recommendations to us?
Judge Ross. If I could get these two. it would be a tremeiidous
improvement. One is, if LEAA would be permitted to make some sub-
stantial investment in the capital improvement, provided tliat capital
improvement is in the best interest of good court administration. I
don't mean build a new courthouse. That is not what I am talking
about.
Second, if we could avoid the built-in layer of bureaucracy that
exists in my State at the State and city level. I don't exi")ect the money
to come to each court administrator directly. But there is a chief judge
in the State.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Justice, I could listen to you for hours, and
I am sure my distinguished colleagues could, also, because you are
exactly the epitome of what many of us have been hoping we would see
all over the country. In Miami, in Dade County, we have given one of
our presiding judges administrative authority to assign judges to do
all sorts of things, and we have obtained mar\^elous results since we
have done thaJt.
1021
Hei-etofore, judges M-ere autonomous; they were independent and
didn't let anybody tell them what to do. We have coordinated our
whole system in our largest county, Dade County, It is similar to wliat
you have been so well telling us about here today.
Mr. Rangel ?
Mr. Raxgel. I just want to thank you, Judge. And I think we should
not be that optimistic because of the caliber of Justice Ross. It is rare
to get someone with the unique background and assets that he has.
I was wondering whether or not there M-as any lobbying restriction
on you as an administrative judge. It is so easy for politicians to join
in with the newspapers and attack the police and attack the courts, or
attack whatever has been attacked. But, really, there are so many
things we don't laiow that are going on, and it just seems to me that
you know better than anyone else that this type of information should
be in the hands of those people that can be persuasive on the local
level.
Judge Ross. Congi-essman, if you recall, back in my State legisla-
tive days and city hall days, I wasn't exactly bashful when it came to
the pi-ess. In fact, I probablj was a bore to many people.
The point I am getting at is when I mounted the bench in January
of 1969, I spoke to Judge Stevens, who was my presiding justice and
your presiding justice. I pointed out to him, I forget what rank it is in
the U.S. Supreme Court, but either second or third or fourth clerk is
a public information officer. You mention the words "press relations."
It became a dirty word.
I said, "For God's sake, Harold, the first judicial department, the
most important department of the whole State of New York, and we
don't have an information officer." I said, "We have got so many good
accomplishments here, it's a darned good department," and yoii Imow
it. Congressman, but it is a secret. If you are not in it, you don't Imow
it. And if we get criticized — and I mean an improper criticism, not a
legitimate one — and they are right, we make corrections. But if you
get criticized and the criticism is inaccurate or based upon statistics
3 years old — that happened a month ago.
Their statisitics were 3 years old. I don't know where they picked that
one up. There is no one to reply because you don't get involved in public
controversy. We don't get involved in debates. This is right, it should
bo that way, but someone should be designated.
Mr. R AXGEL. Has that been done ?
Judge Ross. I do as much as I can.
Mr. Raxgel. I don't mean j^ou.
Judge Ross. It has only been 414 years. You have got to be fair. We
made the suggestion 4i/> years ago. The answer is no.
INIr. RaxCxEL. Are there any restrictions in terms of the example you
cited? There has been Federal approval of a proposal, and you know
you can't personally call up people, but isn't there some vehicle avail-
able wherein the legislators can be told of the priorities ? The legislators
from time to time have to support the mayor and have to support the
Governor on certain issues, but in most cases they would benefit from
your views.
Judge Ross. Yes, Congressman. This bureaucracy was mandated by
the Federal statute. In other words, they are not permitted to accept an
application directly from me.
1022
Mr. Rangel. I understand what you are saying, Judge. My point is
this: If you were not a judge and you merely liacl a proposal, it makes
good sense to me, whether or not when it is finally in Washington, it
will be approved. I think you are saying once you lind that out, you
have to start all over from the beginning.
Judge Ross. That is right.
Mr. Rangel. If you were not a judge, there is no question in my mind
you could reach certain city councilmen, you could reach certain State
legislators that could put the necessary pressure on the city and State
to move that application, to get it to Washington.
Judge Ross. Well, the truth of the matter is, in my individual in-
stance, I hand-carry them. I don't give them to councihnen because
the criminal justice coordinating council in New York is an agency
reportable to the mayor. Incidentally, I am a member of the executive
board. So for the first time, they now get a negative vote once in a
while.
As far as Arch Murray is concerned — and you know the commis-
sioner as well as I do — I have no problems with Commissioner Murray.
But it is another 2 or 3 months of delay. So by the time it comes
through the crisis may be gone. The body may be cold.
Mr. Rangel. You don't have a problem getting your affirmative vote
on the proposal ; it is only the time factor involved ?
Judge Ross. Because they may decide they have different priorities.
After the Attica situation ; the State of New York decided to put all of
the LEA A funds they could get their hands on into the prisons.
Mr. Rangel. You know as well as I do that legislators respond to
whatever public opinion is at the time, and if there were some way —
because you talk about the judiciary not being as equal as the other
branches — and on the national level I think there has come to be only
one supreme branch of government, and we in the Congresss are wor-
ried about that now. But if there were some way to have conferences
on the local level so that the elected officials could better understand
what the problems are you are facing so as to be able to respond and
give you the tools to woi-k with
Judge Ross. I will tell you this. Congressman, I wouldn't hesitate
to walk over to city hall, the building I spent a good part of my adult
life at. I speak to them and don't hesitate to go to Albany. I spent
time in Albany on the voir dire bill and I pushed for the introduction
of it on the floor to bring it to a vote in the Senate. The same day I
pushed for its introduction out of committee in the assembly. Wliere
it is going to go from there I don't know.
Mr. Rangel. I don't mean to be continually complimenting Judge
Ross, but I think one of the problems we have in the Nation is that
most administrators in the courts come from private life to the courts
without having the background and resources and information that
the judge has.
One question, and I know you have to leave. I have never been able
to get an answer to this question from any judge. Why is it that the
judge must ask the defendant whether or not anything has been
promised to him as a result of him pleading guilty, and why must the
defendant say "'No ; nobody has promised me anything" ?
Judge Ross. It isn't true. I don't mean what you are saying isn't
true. That isn't necessary. That is nonsense, Congressman.
1023
Look, let nie correct that. I am not saying what you are saying is
not true, AVhat you are saying is true. I have watched that play act
take place too many times when I was sitting as trial justice and say-
ing, ''Wait a minute, I just said to that man, you are pleading to a D
felony. You are facing zero to 7 years. The best you can hope from
me, I won't give you the maximum, which means I give myself a
leeway of zero to 6, if your probation report indicates what your
counsel tells me. If it doesn't, fellow, I indicate a zero to 7 or with-
draw your plea of guilty."
I think that is something. Congressman, that is lost in antiquity.
They were doing that when I was admitted to the bar in 1942. It
wasn't taught in law school.
Mr. Rangel. The defendants have so little respect for the process,
whether they are innocent or guilty, and when defense counsel is
foTced to advise his client to answer in the negative, or when the dis-
trict attorney has to tell the defense how — especially new law^^ers — •
to handle the plea bargaining, when the defendant expects a better
deal, and he should get one if he pled guilty rather than going through
the expensive and involved process of a trial, I just don't see why we
can't deal with it.
Judge Ross. Congressman, I don't see that as a problem. I agree
with you completely. I think you see less and less of that in the criminal
courts of New York because I keep urging my justices, if you think
a year is a proper sentence, or probation, or unconditional discharge,
et cetera, et cetera, you say that. It is your responsibility. It is as sim-
ple as that.
I have no difficulty, of course, as you know. I am not sitting in the
trial part now, but I have no difficulty saying to the defendant, 'Tf
you understand that your plea of guilt}' as I accept it makes you
liable to zero to 15 years and I told your counsel it is my inclination
to think in terms of I2I/2 1<5 15-" You put it right on the record.
Mr. Rangel. That is no bargain.
Judge Ross. Maybe to this man it was a bargain.
Mr. Rangel. Twelve and one-half years instead of 15 ?
Judge Ross. No, He is pleading to a possible maximum of 15. The
bargain he already received is getting the reduced plea. Not in every
instance. The sentence has to fit the crime, to paraphrase a great ope-
retta. But as far as this crime, "Have you made any promises," really
what is involved there — and I think the genesis of it is the Constitu-
tion guarantees that a defendant has — we don't bludgeon him, whether
it be the policeman extracting a confession or an overreaching court
compelling a plea. That is just as wrong.
But I tell my judges, "Put it right on the record, by all means." By
all means.
Mr. Rangel. I hope that some of these reports you have could be
made available to us. Judge. I don't know how much expense would
be involved to get them at least to the New York City congressional
delegation.
Judge Ross. We will get them out,
Mr. Rangel. I think it will be a great help to us, and we could ask
you to meet with the delegation from tnne to time.
Judge Ross. One of your Congressmen doesn't want to meet with me
because he had an incident in the streets and the fellow jumped bail.
95-158 5
1024
So he is mad at me. But the fact of the matter is, in that instance
when they Tvanted to book the fellow on assault, he became very social
minded and got him for public intoxication. I can't get excited about
a fellow arrested for public intoxication, I am sorry.
Chairman Pepper. Judge, as you heard us say, we are seeking in
these hearings the most innovative programs and procedures we can
hnd in the country that will be an example of an inspiration to other
authorities to do a more effective job in the administration of justice.
1 think you have given us the further hope there will be more judicial
administrators like you. That would be the most innovative thing that
possibly could be done in all of the courts of this countr}".
I don't include the Supreme Court or appellate courts, but all of the
trial courts that seem to be so badly in need of this sort of experience,
confidence, drive, and dedication to the job that you have manifested
in your excellent testimony here today.
We want to thank you.
Mr. E ANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state for the record, the
effect of this judicial spirit on the communit3^ Recently, when we had
elections, Judge Dudley, outside of the judicial responsibility of the
court, assigned judges to various polling places to make certain that
the election and the registration processes would be effective. I think
this is something that makes people proud of public service.
Judge Eoss. Thank you very much.
Chairman Pepper. We will recess until 2 o'clock.
[Whereupon, at 1 :30 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at
2 p.m., this same day.]
[The following material was received for the record :]
[Excerpt from the "Nine-Montli Report of the Criminal Court of the City of New York,"
January-September 1972]
Ckiminal Coukt of the City of Xew York,
New York, N.Y., January 9, 1913.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
To : Presiding Justice Harold A. Stevens ; Presiding Justice Samuel Rabin.
From : Mr. Justice David Ross.
Re : Report for First Nine Montlis of 1972.
Pursuant to a policy of submitting quarterly reports on the progress of tbe
Criminal Court, I am forwarding this Nine Month Report.
Because an Annual Report is due to be prepared soon, this report, unlike the
previous ones d<^s not include details of operations but is limited to statistical
data.
Again I am very pleased to inform you that the Criminal Court's record of
performance has continued to show improvement during the first nine months
of 1972. When compared to the first nine months of 1971, the current period
registered the following significant achievements :
Pending cases down 40% from 28,068 to 16.695,
Cases awaiting sentence down 7% from 3077 to 2852,
Defendants in detention awaiting court action down S7% from 2831 to 1797,
Average duration of cases down 44% from 6.29 weeks to 3..51 weeks.
Average length of adjournment down 47% from 2.75 weeks to 1.45 weeks,
Warrants issued down 31%,
Hearings conducted up 27% from 16,620 to 21,179,
Filings down 9% from 180,737 to 164,208.
[Excerpt from "Analysis of the Kipht and Weekend Arraignment Parts in the Bronx and
Queens Criminal Courts," February 1973, prepared by the New York City KAND
Institute]
SUMMARY
With the aid of a grant from the State Office of Planning Services, Division of
criminal Justice, the New Yorlc City Criminal Court opened night, weel^end, and
holiday arraignment courts, or "parts," in its Bronx and Queens branches on
September 27 and October 4, 1971, respectively. Prior to this time, these branches
operated only during regular daytime hours ; defendants to be arraigned at night
or on weekends or holidays were transported to either Manhattan or Brooklyn.
The pro))lems encountered imder this system included : especially heavy bur-
dens in the Manhattan and Brooklyn night parts, few dispositions at arraignment
in Bronx and Queens cases taken to the other counties, and high police transporta-
tion costs. In addition, the transfer of cases between counties caused delay, con-
fusion, wasted effort, and less effective defense representation.
The added cost of operating the new parts has been about $1.2 million per year.
However, our analysis shows that, in addition to solving the above problems, the
new parts have produced substantial additional benefits : estimated direct savings
to criminal justice agencies in excess of $1.3 million per year ; reduced defendant
time in detention by an estimated 82 man-years (an average of about 5.5 days
for each of 5500 defendants) annually; reduced cost and inconvenience to wit-
nesses, police officers, and defendants through the elimination of some 30.000
unnecessary court appearances each year ; improved quality of judicial decisions.
Among our recommendations are the following :
The new parts should be continued in operation, since they are yielding sub-
stantial net benefits.
The excess capacity in the new parts, particularly at night, should be utilized
by (1) scheduling additional post-arraignment appearances in these parts, and
(2) shifting the night hours of operation later. In the Bronx we suggest explor-
ing the possibility of holding night court in the Supreme Court building, which
is in a better location than that of the Criminal Court building.
The use of Civil Court judges on weekends and holidays should be discontinued,
since the indirect costs are more than the saving.
The practice of rotating inexperienced personnel through the weekend parts
should be carefully reviewed.
Means of smoothing the delivery of defendants to the arraignment parts by
the police should be developed.
Legal Aid Society representation at arrangement should be extended to all
defendants.
[Excerpt from "Annual Report of the Criminal Court of the City of New York," 1971]
Criminal Court of the City of New York,
New York, N.Y.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
To : Presiding Justice Harold A. Stevens ; Presiding Justice Samuel Rabin.
From : Mr. Justice David Ross.
The Anniml Report of the Criminal Court of the City of New York is sub-
mitted herewith.
This is the first annual report of its kind to be submitted by this court. Here-
tofore the court's annual report contained mostly a statistical summary of court
business and contained no information concerning the court's administrative
programs.
Although the court plans at a later date to prepare and distribute a more de-
tailed statistical report similar to the previous annual reports, I believe this
new type of report will be more informative and representative of the activities
of the court in the year 1971. Also, the previous report required a great deal of
time to prepare due to the detailed statistical work involved and thus was often
not available until a year or so after the close of the year being reported. I hope
that we can reduce that delay with the assistance of the New York City Judicial
Data Processing Office, upon whom we are placing complete reliance for the
production of that report. In the meantime we have developed a new statistical
1026
program that is intended to be a more useful management tool and provide data
on a more current basis than was available in the past.
That new statistical system, and the other programs reported on herein reflect
the work of the court in 1971.
INTRODUCTION
The Criminal Court of the City of New York is part of the Unified Court
System of the State of New York. As such it is suliject to administrative super-
vision by the Administrative Board of the Judicial Conference of the State of
New York and the Appellate Divisions of the First and Second Judicial Depart-
ments. Funds for the operation of the court are supplied by the City of New
York. The court's current budget for fiscal year ia71-19'72 amounts to $14,125,-
789 : this is only 3% more than the previous fiscal year when the budget was
$13,655,027.
The Appellate Divisions, by a joint order designate the Administrative Judge
who is responsible for the administration of the court. His management policy
is implemented by the court's Executive Officer. Effective January 1, 1971, Mr,
Justice David Ross was designated as Administrative Judge succeeding Mr. Jus-
tice Edward Dudley who had served as Administrative Judge since January 1,
1967. The position of Assistant Administrative Judge was eliminated. Judge
Vincent Massi. Assistant Administrative Judge since 1967 was returned to .ludi-
eial duties and assigned to sit as an acting Supreme Court Justice. On Febru-
ary 5. 1971 Mr. Justice David Ross named Lester C. Goodchild, former Admin-
istrator of the court, to fill the newly created position of Executive Officer.
Due to administrative reorganization, lines of authority have been tightened.
Supervising .judges designated for each county are responsible for the more effec-
tive utilization of judicial personnel assigned to the various court parts. Assist-
ant Chief Clerks in each borough, responsible to the Deputy Executive Officer
in charge of operations have achieved tighter controls over the non-judicial per-
sonnel oijerations in the courts. Deputy Executive Officers in charge of adminis-
trative operations, planning, and court operations have been given complete con-
trol in their areas. However, the court is handicapped by not acquiring an ade-
quate in-house analysis capability and is compelled to rely almost entirely upon
voluntary and makeshift substitutes for a much needed "research, planning and
implementation staff." The Executive Officer, as second in command directs all
line and staff administrative functions of the court. To assist him a new position
of Executive Assistant to the Executive Officer has been created.
The court is authorized to have 98 judges. Judicial positions were kept filled
during 1970 and 1971 with but one (1) vacancy existing at the end of 1971 and
two (2) at the end of 1970. The names of judges of the court who served during
1971 are listed in Exhibit I. Judges are appointed by the Mayor, and serve 10 year
terms and receive a salary of $30,750 per year.
The court has jurisdiction over felonies, misdemeanors, violations and traffic
infractions committed within New York, Kings. Queens. Bronx and Richmond
Coiinties ; the five counties which comprise the City of New York.
During the calendar 1971 the court's intake amounted to 236,600 arrest
cases plus 378,000 summons or appearance ticket cases. The number of arrest
cases disposed of amounted to 256.122. Sununons case disposition figures ai'e not
available at this time. Arrest cases pending disposition as of the end of 1971
amounted to 18.875 cases and there were 2.852 eases awaiting sentence. More
detailed statistical reports appear in Exhibit II and in the appended Progress
"Reports,
The court's judicial operations are carried out in some 66 parts which handle
arrest cases and 8-9 parts which handle summons cases all of which are housed
in 13 court houses. Exhibit III contains a list of the courthouses in use during
1971.
1027
The court has 1092 authorized non-judicial employees all of whom are civil
service employees. A list of the number of positions and the respective civil service
titles appear in Exhibit IV.
The 1092 figure represents a reduction from 1111 authorized positions for 1970
and 1122 authorized in 1969.
While authorized positions have decreased 3% since 1969, non-judicial position
vacancies have increased by 129o rising from 127 vacancies in 1969, to 135 in 1970
and reaching a high of 1^13 vacant positions in 1971. Thus the court operated in
1971 with 13Sfc of its authorized positions unfilled.
SUMMARY — "how THE COURT WAS TURNED AROUND"
No one factor can be pointed to, which stands alone as the reason for the
Criminal Court reaching its present capability of managing its caseload in con-
trast to the many other criminal courts in the state and country which are
reported to be continuing to build backlogs and increase delay in bringing cases
to trial. The fact remains however, that the Criminal Court of the City of New
York "turned around" in 1971 and efforts ought to be invested in the conduct of
an in-depth evaluative study of changes and programs instituted in 1971. This
report is not of that nature. Such an undertaking by this court is not presently
feasible because :
Many of the programs are still in the experimental or implementation
stage.
Full and complete statistical data has not been collected.
Most innovative programs were not initially designed as controlled experi-
ments.
The court lacks sufficient time and manpower to conduct and employ eval-
uative study techniques.
The purpose of this report then is to list change-oriented programs conducted
in 1971 which were adopted and implemented because the court managers firmly
believed change was needed and, if undertaken, would offer reasonable alterna-
tives to previous practices and procedures.
In the first few months of 1971 the new administration spent a great deal of
time gathering and sifting through the many suggestions, comments, criticisms,
reports and studies that abounded concerning tlie court and its status and role in
the criminal justice system. One of the most important of these studies is the
Organization Study by the Economic Development Council Task Force. See
Exhibit V. That Study made it abundantly clear that new managerial leadership
could not be etfective without giving adequate and sufficient attention to the :
Establishment of a management team capable of assisting the new Admin-
istrative Judge in carrying out his role as '"change agent".
Fostering a cooperative atmospliere among all the members of the criminal
justice system to make changes and improvements possible.
Statement of goals to be attained.
Giving management a means of measurement of goals reached.
Design of an information system to monitor performance and productivity.
Improvement of communication between court management, judges and
non-judicial personnel.
Pi'omotion of a sense of accomplishment, reward and achievement among
the cfiurt personnel.
Armed with the knowledge of the changes that were being recommended from
many quarters, the court could then employ the above management techniques
to select and introduce those changes wh.ich possessed the greatest potential for
"turning the court around". Change-oriented programs were selected hy the
Administrative .Judge and implemented and that process is continuing. The fol-
lowing chart, although oversimplified presents a summary of the entire process :
1028
COURT MANAGEMENT FLOW CHART
IDENTIFY CRITICAL AREAS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE CONCERN
IDENTIFY
GOALS
RESPONSE
TO CRISES
:iiC-
DISCUSS, REVIEW, RESEARCH
FRAME POLICY ALTERNATIVES AND TEST
:k-
SELECTION'.OF POLICY - DECISION-MAKING
J -V. .
PLAN/ ORGANIZE/ IMPLEMENT/ DOCUMENT
*
'
MONITOR/ REJECT/ IMPROVE/ EVALUATE
1029
The major programs undertaken by the court in 1071 are described in a series
of progress reports which have been submitted to the Appellate Division on a
near quarterly basis. Those programs were selected for implementation early in
1971 with the hope that if implemented, the Criminal Court might improve its
ability to cope with rhe administrative and case processing problems that were
confronting and nearly overwhelming the court. The results achieved following
the implementation and continuation of those programs were beyond expectation.
A smooth-working and effective management team has been put together.
Tlie calendars of the Criminal Court of the City of New York are now
current.
Judicial "bench time" now averages 5.25 hours — more than double re-
ported figures for previous years.
There are fewer defendants in detention awaiting court action than at
any time since 1967.
Cases pending disposition have been reduced so that they now are about
the same as the monthly intake.
Delay in case processing has been controlled so that on the average, cases
are now being disposed of within 4^/2 weeks.
The number of appearances and length of adjournments have been reduced.
The size of the calendars is now under control and manageable.
The innovative programs that were reported on in the progress reports (pp.
PR1-15G) although implemented under crisis conditions have crystallized as a
total system with the primary orientation toward change of court operations.
Thei'e has been a total acceptance, at every level of court management, of the
need for change.
The purpose of this summary is to relate the individual programs to the re-
sults sought to be achieved. To accomplish this the programs will be grouped
for discussion purposes under the following headings, each of which points to a
goal selected, a crisis responded to or an identified area of critical administra-
tive concern :
Administrative.
Case Processing.
Resource Allocation and Utilization.
Coordination.
Performance Monitoring.
Improvement of Judicial Performance.
Physical Plant.
Service to Defendants and Public.
Improvement of Non-Judicial Performance.
Records Management.
1. Administrative
Grouped under this heading are such programs as appointment of supervising
judges; appointment of executive staff; reorganization of all administrative
operations of the court; regular meetings and discussions with administrative
staff, judges and supervising judges ; reorganization of court bulletin and ad-
ministrative issuance procedures (See Exhibit VI for index to 1971 administra-
tive issuances) ; consolidation and relocation of all Executive Office staff to the
third floor at 100 Centre Street; redesign of statistical reporting system to make
it more current and to include all necessary data to prepare the newly designed
monthly Comparative Statistical Profile (CSP) reports which are discussed more
fully in the Progress Reports (p. PR-141) and in Exhibit II; continued plan-
ning sessions with the New York City Judicial Data Processing Office to com-
plete programming of computer support to statistical and management report
system ; coordination and review of work of the Economic Development Council
Task Force in its documentation and analysis of Queens County operations, work
flow, procedures and work measurement studies.
Each of the programs were aimed at improving the court's ability to make ad-
ministrative decisions, solve problems and operate the judicial machinery. How-
ever, it had to be coupled with the indispensable element of Leadership. That
Leadership in full measure was provided at every level of management.
2. Case processing
Included under this heading are such projects as establishment of city-wide
all purpose parts (which are divisions of the court into which a mix of cases are
sent for action after arraignment to remain there before the same judge, defense
counsel, etc. until final disposition), creation of additional arraignment parts
1030
tliroughout the city to include liearings, trials and motions ; continuation of the
federally funded Master All-Pui"pose Part experiment designed to test improved
case readiness procedures whereby cases are fed to the judge only when judicial
action is required ; reduction of case flow to courtrooms by dismissal at intake
(in complaint room) of cases the District Attorney deems not prosecutable: spe-
cial calendar call of "old cases" with puiijose of disposing of them ; completion
of youthful offender eligibility examinations on same day requested by judge
instead of adjournment to future date ; re(iuirement that a prisoner against whom
a new arrest warrant has been lodged (where a peace ofHcer is the complainant)
be arraigned immediately so that the case can proceed ; exchange of Criminal
court I'oonis in Brooklyn court house which lack access to detention facilities for
Civil court rooms which have such access so that more Criminal Court parts can
process jail cases ; establishment of night and w^eekend courts in Bronx and
Queens to reduce burden in Kings and Manhattan resulting from handling Queens
and Bronx arraignments as well as their own. (See Exhibit VII which is a full
report on these newly created courts) ; prescription of penalties for unreason-
able adjournment and delay in order to reduce adjournments and speed disposi-
tions ; bail review every two weeks for defendants detained over 30 days waiting
disposition.
These programs were intended to improve movement and flow of cases through
the judicial process with reasonable speed and opportunity for judicial action.
S. Resource allocation and utilization
Projects which fall under this heading include consolidation of three separate
summons parts in each borough into a single summons part conserving personnel,
court rooms and judges and improving productivity ; assigmnent of judges and
non-judicial personnel to boroughs based on relative workloads ; creation of a
central records unit to be responsible for city-wide operations of fingerprinting,
microfilm storage, and disposition reporting to Judicial Conference in order to
achieve standardization, control and improved utilization of employees ; establish-
ment of Executive Cabinet of key administrators to review personnel assign-
ments, promotions and policies : documentation of special needs to overcome
"job freeze" and vacancy controls.
Good management calls for careful utilization and conservation of resources
so that productivity is kept high and the workload and resources are evenly
matched. Limited local government funds have imposed an additional burden on
court managers by forcing managers to "ration" resources and give careful
attention to setting of priorities. The above progi-ams are an attempt to meet
this situation.
Jf. Coordination
Grouped under this heading are the various efforts made to improve court
operations by giving adequate attention to outside agencies and institutions
which can impact court operations. Thus the court prepared legislative reports
to enable it to keep abreas't of new laws being proposed and make known its
position regarding their effect on the court. Frequent conferences are held by
administrative staff with outside agencies such as Department of Correction,
Police Department, Legal Aid Socit^ty representatives and District Attorney
to discuss changes and problems. Continuous discussions are held with plan-
ning and other officials of Judicial Conference concerning improvement of Dis-
position reporting procedures. This had led to cooperative efforts to obtain
federal funds for the hiring of personnel to eliminnte the 160,000 backlog of
disposition reporifs. There has been constant interchange of information and
options between the court and the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council so
that the court both contributes and receives data and planning considerations
concerning all units of the Criminal Justice System. Special attention was given
to the problems posed as a result of legislative changes in the arrest record
procedure giving the task to the New York State Identification and Intelligence
System in Albany. These problems included design of arrest record report, delay
in receipt of report, lost and misdirected inquiries, poor quality of report and
incomplete records. Although some of these problems continue, some improve-
ment appears likely due to coordinated effoi'ts between court, NYSIIS, Police,
CJCC and others.
1031
The following is a partial lis't of the units and agencies witli wlioiu tlie Court
has had frequent communication and exchange of information concerning prob-
lems of more than a routine nature :
Police Department
NYSIIS
Pultlic Works
District Attorney from five counties
Deparlnient of Correction
Department of IMoitor Vehicles
Office of tlie Mayor
Appellate Divisions, First and Second Department
Judicial Conference
Legal Aid ^Society
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council
Parking Violations Bureau
Bureau of the Budget
Comptroller's Office
Secretary of State — Albany
City Department of Law
State Police
Department of Purchase
Narcotics Addicticm Control Commission
Office of Probation
Bellevue Hospital
Kings County Hospital
State Department of Correction
City Department of Personnel
Office of Deputy Mayor
City Council
State Investigation Commission
Supreme Court
Civil Court
New York City Judicial Data Processing Office
Office of State Crime Control Planning
Temporary Commission on Courts
Office of the Governor
State and City Depai-'tment of Mental Health
Vera Institute of Justice
Even this list is not complete but it clearly points to the importance of attend-
ing to the coordination aspect of court administration.
In the case of the new night and weekend courts and the new procedures
for determination of fitness to stand trial (CPL article 730 effective July 1,
1971) neither program could have achieved the success indicated witliout exten-
sive attention to multi-agency coordinating efforts.
5. Performance monitoring
Included in this category are such projects as day by day reports on prisoner
arrival time, design of new statistical system (CSP Report), report of opening
and closing of court, reports on absence or lateness of police officers for court
appearance ; time record sheet on police officer arrival at each stage of case
processing, special daily reports on night court and weekend court funded by
federal grant ; weekly report on the number of cases dismissed in complaint
room by District Attorney, revised report on cases reviewed at special bi-weekly
bail reviews, report on time delay in furnishing NYSIIS criminal history sheet
from fingerprint record.
The year 1971 saw a substantial increase in the number and kinds of reports
kept to inform management of the effectiveness of measures taken, and to
direct attention to problem areas that it must know and deal with in order to
set and achieve standards of performance. However, each report has a specific
jmrpose and was usually in i-esponse to a problem or crisis situation which
faced the court in the early months of 1971. Attention was given at the same
time to developing timely standardized monitoring methods. The basis for this
1032
will be Comparative Statistical Profile (CSP) report which is designed to
rank and compare monthly performance of each borough in selected areas, record
cumulative data and establish judicial man day measurements enabling evalua-
tion of per part day performance. Continued development in this area is vital
and will aid in resource allocation.
iThese reports have been utilized by the supervising judges and assistant
chief clerks to give them a basis for measuring their performance vis-a-vis the
total city system and other boroughs.
Because the data for the new CSP system is available on a more timely basis
(usually by the 15th of the month following the reporting period), management's
evaluation of the information and response to problems can be more effective.
6. Improvement of judicial performance
Underlying all the efforts and projects in this area is the tenet laid down
by the administrative judge that the first priority of court management is to
service the judicial officers in their task of processing the caseload of the court
to the end that prompt and effective justice is administered.
Thus, such projects as reassigning the clerk to each courtroom : reducing
judges' workload through establishment of additional day, night and weekend
arraignment parts and District Attorney termination of cases in the complaint
room ; providing law student interns to work with judges and providing them
with legal assistance; establishing a judges' prison visitation committee to see
at first hand and report on prison conditions ; instituting improved "calendar
tickler" so that daily calendars are evened out and reduced to a more manage-
able number ; transferring responsibility for prompt competency determina-
tion to mental health agency thus relieving judge of the burden of selecting
appropriate hospital or clinic ; completing youthful offender procedures at
initial appearance so that adjournment is not required: providing judge with
continuity of control over his cases by converting to All Purpose Parts and
establishing long term assignments to those parts; improving judge's control
over calendar by giving him new means of enforcing compliance with speedy
trial and reducing delay and continuances through the use of sanctions and
adjournment guidelines : establishing an orientation program for new judges
(See Exhibit VIII for the content of the most recent of these pi'Ograms) : en-
couraging prompt filling of judicial vacancies so that a full complement of
judicial officers is available for equitable distribution of workload ; designing
improved "record of court action" form to improve case history records for
judge ; holding regular meetings with judges and their respective supervising
judge and in banc meetings with Administrative .Judge to discuss prol)lems and
introduce and explain new administrative and procedural policies ; holding
seminar on new Criminal Procedure Law and distributing materials concerning
CPL changes and new procedures.
Judicial morale has greatly increased as a result of this program and the
efforts in 1971 to reduce backlog, even out workload, establish more manage-
able daily calendars, improve case flow (so that judges spend less time waiting
for cases to be ready for judicial action) and provide judges with more "judicial
muscle" to eliminate delay, continuances and procrastination by parties to a case.
7. Physical plant
Procedural changes have put added burdens on the already inadequate court-
house facilities. Programs had to be planned which could quickly adjust existing
plant to new procedures such as all purpose parts, new arraignment parts, etc.
One such program was the design and construction of benches and jury boxes that
were both collapsible and poi-table so that as new parts were opened or moved,
they could be set up for judicial proceedings without usual construction delays ;
15 such portable benches and 15 portable jury boxes were built and are now
available for use. Courtrooms can now be converted into jury parts almost in-
stantly and vacant rooms can become courtrooms overnight. As previously men-
tioned exchange and sharing of courtrooms has been undertaken between the
Criminal Court, Supreme Court and Civil Court.
Long range planning for space utilization is continuing with construction
already begun for a new building for the Bronx, and master planning is almost
complete for Manhattan. See Exhibit IX for summary of this plan which is being
prepared under a Safe Streets Grant by Dr. Michael Wong, a court space con-
sultant and architect.
A great deal of time and attention has been given to the space problem by the
court and the Department of Public Works.
1033
Programs were completed to consolidate all summons parts into a single part
and under one roof. Thus the courthouse at 52 Chambers Street which housed
summons parts is no longer used (except for record storage) as a result of the
consolidation of the Manhattan summons parts at 346 Broadway.
S. Service to defendants and puhlic
Included under this heading are such projects as posting calendars for all pai-ts
on two new bulletin boards on the main floor lobby ; preparing and posting new
signs for all parts ; arranging for defendants appearing on station house sum-
mons to report to a central location maintained by the issuing agency — from there
to be taken to court by the issuing agency representative (rather than going
directly to the courtroom and waiting around for a case to be called about which
the court had no case papers on file) ; giving defendants notice in English and
Spanish of their rights, bail conditions, trial date, adjourned part and location :
continuing bi-monthly bail review of defendants detained over 30 days permitting
judicial review as to possible release, reduction of bail or accelerating trial date ;
endorsing commitment order (of defendants ordered remanded to Correction)
with notice of need for possible medical attention for defendants suspected of
being sick, addicted or otherwise disturbed ; requiring defendants that they be
produced in court for arraignment within 24 hours to encourage immediate
arraignment and possibly reduce abridgment of prisoner's privileges automati-
cally invoked where warrant is lodged ; reducing overnight holdovers of defend-
ants by providing night and weekend courts in Queens and Bronx thus enabling
speedier release of defendants whom court ROR"s, releases on bail, or discharges
at arraignment.
9. Improvement of non judicial personnel performance
A concerted effort was made to inaugurate programs to improve the perform-
ance and morale of non-judicial personnel. Included under that program were
such projects as obtaining from the City, permission to make promotions over
and above those permitted under the job freeze — some 94 employees were re-
warded for performance through promotion from the civil service list of eligibles ;
inauguration of an employee newsletter in 1971 which provides an informal
in-house information niediiun operated by the employees with particular atten-
tion to bringing the far-flung court locations into closer contact through the
monthly publication ; preparation and issuance of certificates of promotion to
employees to provide a remembrance and honor them upon their achievement ;
design and planning was completed for establishment of a court employees
training program starting with a program for Uniformed Court Officers, the
most important entrance level position in the court. Director and Assistant Di-
rector of training positions were established and filled to operate the program
and funds were received from the Administrative Board of the Judicial Con-
ference to purchase training materials ; inauguration of a series of administra-
tive bulletins and directives to keep the employees informed of operational,
administrative and personnel policies.
Successful completion of restructuring the parts and reducing calendars and
backlogs could not have been possible without the loyal and dedicated non-
judicial employees' contribution ; success in those areas served to improve
employee morale.
10. Records management
Although some limited efforts were undertaken in this area a great deal re-
mains to be done. However, most records management problems will eventually
be approached through a complete revision of the manual procedures replacing
them with automated records management systems. Following the completion
of the procedural revisions and successful introduction of calendar control,
attention can now be turned to introduction of electronic data processing changes.
Design of a total record management system has already been undertaken.
Preliminary work and testing was undertaken in 1971 in conjunction with the
New York City Judicial Data Processing OfBce ( JDPO) but further development
had to be delayed until 1972 due to JDPO's shortage of system design personnel.
See Exhibit X for a draft proposal concerning that system.
Study is continuing in the microfilm area and several systems approaches
have been studied.
Installation was completed for storage on microfilm of original stenographic
notes. That system, perhaps the first of its kind in the country, involves immedi-
ate filing of original stenographic tapes (similar to adding machine tape) to be
1034
retained as the court's permanent and central record of the original minutes
of all court proceedings. The original tapes are returned to the court stenograph-
er for his later use in transcribing work. This system protects against a repeat
of the loss and destruction of these important original records that occurred in
1969 as a result of a bomb explosion at 100 Centre Street when 90 days of trial
and arraignment minutes were totally or partially destroyed.
Projects were also completed in the design of new and simplified court records
including docket books, summonses and appearance tickets, fines receipt and
register procedures, case backs, etc. Lack of trained forms-design personnel
greatly hinders the woi*k of the court in this important area.
Perhaps the most important change (that offers to pay future dividends) was
the creation of a Central Records Bureau and the appointment of a Director to
assume overall responsibility for citywide records management problems and
programs.
As previously mentioned, a special federally funded project was undertaken to
obtain funds to pay clerical help to complete the backlog of some 160,000 dispo-
sition records for the Judicial Conference. Responsibility for direction and man-
agement of that project was placed in the Central Records Bureau which greatly
contributed to its success.
[Press release dated Apr. 22, 197.3]
Presiding Justices Harold A. Stevens and Samuel Rabin. Appellate Divisions,
First and Second Judicial Departments, released a report prepared by the well-
known Certified Public Accounting firm. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. meas-
uring the financial impact of administrative improvements instituted by Ad-
ministrative Judge David Ross in the New York City Criminal Court from Janu-
ary. 1971. through June 30, 1972. The Report and related study by this account-
ing firm was made at no cost to the courts or the City.
According to the findings and conclusions of the Peat, Marwick report :
The Criminal Court's administrative improvements over an eighteen-month
period ending June 30, 1972, have produced an estimated net unmtal saving to
the City of over %(S.l million.
Reduction in Criminal Court backlog of cases and of defendants in detention
during the above-mentioned period resulted in an estimated one-time saving to
the City of over $4S..5 million.
Annual cost savings estimated to the City are summarized in the Report as
follows :
Estimated
Cost Savings
Night and weekend courts___.. _ $1, 750, 374 _-.
Police veliicle operation $122, 064
Additional criminal court parts 1, 539,820
Additional supreme/civil parts 555, 594
Controllable personal service cost - --- 163,088
Police time during post arrest -- 144, 089
Reduction of defendants in pretrial detention -- 6. 000,000
Total . $1,750,374 8,524,655
Less cost - -- -1,750,374
Estimated excess of annual saving over cost - 6, 774, 281
Concerning one-time savings, the largest item represented the projected cost
of constructing a new detention institution which would have been needed to
house at least 1,000 more defendants awaiting trial. A reduction in the average
number of Criminal Court defendants in pre-trial detention by at least 1.000
eliminates the need to construct and operate such a new detention institution to
comply with standards agreed to by the city.
*******
The Peat, Marwick Repoi-t points out that there were many other areas of
possible savings which could not be verified. Statistics or data needed were not
kept or were imavailable. This was true, in particular, with respect to the absence
of Police Department statistics concerning police time spent in making court
appearances.
1035
The Peat. Marwiek analysis was based on a time period which began in Janu-
ary, 1071, and ended on June 30, 1972. The time period was cliosen to determine
the impact of the first eighteen months of an administrative reorganization of
the Criminal Ctairt carried out by Administrative Judge David Ross under the
direction of the Appellate Divisions. Because Criminal Court disj)ositions ex-
ceeded new filings of cases in January 1971, for the first time in several years,
a strict standard was adopted by using that month as a base point from which to
estimate subsequent costs savings through June, 1972.
The Criminal Court backlog has continued to decline substantially since June,
1972. As observed in the Peat, Marwick Report, the average number of prisoners
held in pre-trial detention has declined steadily to less than 1,200 in January,
1973.
« * * * * * *
Afterxoon Session
Chairman Pepper. Judge, I am sori-y we are a little late. We had
to go and vote. But I don't want to keep yon longer than we can pos-
sibly help. "We are so grateful to yon for coming.
Mr. Counsel, yon may proceed.
Mr. NoiJ)E. Thank vou, Mr. Chairman. Our next v\'itness is Judffe
Lisa Richette, who has had a distinguished career and brings to the
bench a unique blend of experience. A Phi Beta Kappa graduate of
the Univereity of Pennsylvania and a Yale Law School alumni, Judge
Richette began her legal career as an assistant district attorney in
Philadelphia, and in 2 years she was named chief of the family court
division of that office.
After 10 years as a prosecutor, Judge Richette began teaching law
at several miiversities and became an eminent defense attorney special-
izing in juvenile oifenders. In 1971 she was appointed judge of the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, which is the State court of
original jurisdiction for the county of Philadelphia ; namely, the basic
trial court for civil and criminal cases. Judge Richette has been com-
mended by several Philadelphia organizations for her outstanding
contributions to the community and to the bench.
We are delighted to have you here, Judge. We would be happy to
have any opening remarks you care to make,
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA A. EICHETTE, JUDGE, COMMON PLEAS
COUKT, MAJOR CRIMES DIVISION, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Judge Richette. Thank you very much.
Chairman Pepper. Judge, I share the fraternity of Phi Beta Kappa
with you, but I had to go to Harvard to get it.
Judge Richette. Lot me say, first of all. Chairman Pepper, you
were a great inspiration to me in my youth. You were one of my
heroes. There are a great number of people in my generation for whom
you were a verj' important symbol of courage. It is an honor to be in
your presence.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you.
Judge Richette. I did apply to Harvard Law School, sir, but they
turned me down on the basis of sex.
Chairman Pepper. Another one of its mistakes.
Judge Richette. They admitted women tlie next year.
Chairman Pepper. I am glad they corrected that error.
1036
Judge RicHETTE. I am \'ery Iiappy to be here because I tliink the
whole problem of street crime is a reiy urgent one and it has been
obscured by a great deal of rhetoric and a great deal of misinforma-
tion, which is helping to shape public misunderstanding about the
nature and process of our judicial system, which I believe is very
fundamental to the functioning of our whole democratic process.
And it is very interesting that today is Law Dav because it seems
to me that, m our terror and in our fear, a fear that is being consci-
ously generated by certain political forces in our society, Ave are seek-
ing what are basically antilegal and antidemocratic solutions to what
has to be, m the last analysis, a human problem.
I have had a very long period in working with deviant people, peo-
ple vdio are labeled by our society either '*sick'^ or "criminal," de-
pending very often on which socioeconomical state they occupy. This
is especially true in the case of children. The children of the rich,
middle-class children, who commit antisocial acts, are ^aewed in the
majority as being emotionally ill and they end up in psychiatrists'
offices, whereas the children of the poor who commit identical or par-
allel acts of behavior end up as human products in our juyenile justice
system.
I Avant to say that while I was attending Yale Law School, which
happily did admit women when I applied. I worked for 3 years around
the clock as a cottage parent to a group of emotionally tdistuTbed chil-
dren who were committed by court order to an institution that was
"therapeutic," called the Children's Center in Hamdeii, Conn.
While tliese children attended their classes. I went to my law classes.
This was a verv'' valuable and important experience because it gave
me something that I tliink eA'crj'one who is iwA'olA'ed in the criminal
justice system, and particularly those who have to pass the sentences,
should have and that is what I would call a Icoigitudinal view of the
offender and the causes of his behaAdor.
So spending 3 years Avith children gave me an opportunity to see
antisocial behaAdor at close range or on a day-to-day basis. I came to
haA^e a feeling about Avhat kind of jjeople Avere caught up in compul-
sive, repetitive patterns and Avhat kind of people could break out of
these patterns.
I then had 10 years in the district attorney's office, and I can fairly
say I Avatched a whole generation of Philadelphia ghetto children
pass from childhood to maturity because, in those 10 years, we saAV
about 10,000 cases a year and since the recidivism rate in our juvenile
court is someAvhere close to 75 percent, I saw many of the same chil-
dren, starting in at age 8, for breaking into car meters, and ending up
at age 16 or 16 as gang members, charged with assault, and even
homicides.
Because I was in that court day in and day out. I really got to know
these children and almost on a first-name basis. "When I Avas appointed
to the bench, sir, I thought that probably I would not go to the juvenile
court — there is a reA''erse application to the Peter principle that oper-
ates in human affairs — so I got assig-ned to adult trials, the major trial
division, and tliere I saw these very children Avhom I called the "throw-
uway children" grown up. And that Avas literally true in many cases.
People would come into my court and they Avould tell tlieir attorneys
that I had been the assistant district attorney in a case involving tliem,
1037
and in several cases I had defended these children and they knew who
I was.
So the population represents a continuum in the criminal justice sys-
tem and it starts in the juvenile justice system and — well, I think you
cannot deal with the phenomenon of street crime and ignore the reali-
ties of the juvenile justice system.
Very recently I was on a panel with our police commissioner, Joseph
M. O'N'eil, and he gave the audience some statistics, just a vreek ago,
that were the most recent ones he had culled. I thought perhaps you
vrould be interested in knowing that in Philadelphia, :25 percent of all
the murders are committed by juveniles, 40 percent of all of the rob-
beries are committed by juveniles.
Chairman Pepper. Twenty-five percent of the murders ?
Judge RicHETTE. And 40 percent of the robberies and 39 percent of
the burglaries.
Chairman Pepper. You are describing juveniles of what age ?
Judge Richette. Under IS under our law.
Despite these percentages, only 16.8 of all LEAA funds last year,
nationally, went to juvenile programs; and in Philadelphia the per-
centage is even smaller ; it is closer to 14 percent.
So that I feel we ought to look at the system, or nonsystems, if you
please, this criminal justice system, which I truly believe is a nonsys-
tem, as a continuous nonsystem. I urge that in all recommendations
that this committee will make that it will bear in mind that the seeds
of antisocial conduct are planted in early youth.
Chairman Pepper. If I may interrupt you, you heard the buzz. I
have to go over and vote. This is the last vote' so we won't be inter-
rupted any more. We are so much interested in what you are saying.
We will return in a few minutes.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
Judge, we again want to apologize to you for our delay. We won't
be interrupted any more so we are looking forward to the pleasure
of hearins: vou.
One of my distinguished colleagues just arrived. Would jow. repeat
those figures about youth crime in Philadelphia?
Judge Richette. Mr. JNIann, the official figures of the Philadelphia
Police Department, given to me by Commissioner O'Neil, are that
last year 25 percent of all of the murders, 40 percent of all of the rob-
beries, armed robberies, aggravated robberies, and 39 percent of all
of the burglaries were committed by juveniles in Philadelphia.
Chairman Pepper. What year was that ?
Judge Richette. That was 1972, sir.
^Ir. Mann. Meaning 18 years or younger?
Judge Richette. Yes; 18 years or younger. And I Avas saying that
despite these percentages, 16.8 percent of the LEAA funds last year,
nationally, went to juvenile programs, and ever a smaller percent in
Philadelpliia were used for juvenile programs.
We liad a recent thing occur in Philadelphia in which a 72-ycar-old
woman was raped and the police finally apprehended the culprits.
They turned out to be two 12-year-old boys. Under our law, 12-year-
olds cannot be institutionalizecl so the court had no alternative but to
place them on probation.
1038
Two nurses at the university, two students at the University of
Pennsylvania, were brutally raped on the street. They were pulled out
as they were walking along the campus lane and were raped, and their
assailants were 14- and 15-year-olds, three of them.
So that street crime is largely the province of the young. I have
been sitting in the major felonies, as I said to Chairman Pepper earlier,
and I would say most of the defendants I have seen in the 16 months in
which I have been in this court are men and women between the ages
of roughly 19 and 23. The median age would be about 21. All of them,
except for those who are addicted as a result of Vietnam experiences,
have juvenile records.
Chairman Pepper. Judge, I saw some figures, if I remember them
correctly, in a report of the conference called the "Dean Pound
Conference."
Judge RiCHETTE. Right.
Chairman Pepper. If I remember correctly, the figures were that
25 percent of the serious crimes, index crimes, were committed by peo-
ple under 18 years of age ; about 40 jiercent by people under 21 ; 51 per-
cent by people under 25. Then I have seen at another place, they
figured about two-thirds of all crime is committed by people under
28. Do those figures seem about right to vou ?
Judge Riciiette. Yes, they do. Absolutely. They coincide com-
pletely with my own experience,
I afso want to point out to you, Mr. Pepper, I wrote a book about the
way in which our juvenile justice system largely sweeps these problems
out of p/ight, aud these people, of course, grow and then they become
statistics in the criminal justice system. That book is called "The
Throwaway Children."
I will be very happy to send you a copy of it. In it I culled many,
many more statistics that illustrate this point.
Chairman Pepper. Thank j^ou.
Judge RiCHETTE. Going back to what I was saying, the criminal jus-
tice system has to be viewed as a continuum that takes into account
the juvenile justice system. I was also saying that it is largely a non-
system, in that the com])onent parts of the system are mainly operating
autonomously, are not in communication with each other, and the most
important component of the system, which I believe to be the judi-
ciary, is absolutely out of control with what happens before the case
gets' to the courtroom and what happens after it leaves the courtroom.
Now I understand this morning you had some recommendation that
the judge also not be in control of the very important part of what
goes on in his courtroom ; namely, sentencing.
So that tliere has been a loss of control, a dispersion of control in
the system away from the judiciary. Why do I think it ought to stay
vrith the judiciary ? Because I think that it is the judiciary that has the
complete picture of the whole process. It is the judiciary that has the
duty to uphold community values, community security, and all of the
rest, balancing them with individual due process values and also, I
would submit to you, tluit I think if there is one group in this society
that has the duty to take the long view, the overview, it is the judi-
ciary, that we cannot succumb to simplistic solutions.
I would say warehousing of people is such a simplistic solution.
The judges ought to be doing two things. They ought to be making
sure that people get full due process rights in the criminal system.
1039
If you had the oppoi-tunity to read Richard Harris' theories in
"The New Yorker," 2 weeks ago, he lias done a series on tlie way that
criminal justice operates in Massachusetts. The iirst article deals with
experiences in one court, where due process just absolutely goes out the
window. That article ends up with the quotation of one judge who
threatened to hold a lawyer in contempt of court if he mentioned the
Supreme Court of the United States once more.
Fascinating articles, Mr. Harris, of course, is a very astute com-
mentatoi- on the legal scene. But the judges must uphold these due
process rights because if people do not get justice iu our courts, the
whole system is a system of criminal iiijustice.
The second thing is that I really believe the judiciary has the duty
to bring about all the substantive reforms that are necessary in our
correctional aiul therapeutic systems.
Chairnum I^eiteh. My imderstanding is that the two things that
Hitler first abolished as he was establishing his dictatorship were the
courts, the right of access to the courts, and the labor unions.
Judge RiciiETTE. Eight. That is it exactly. And the press right be-
hind the courts and the labor unions.
So that it seems to me the most sensitive aud difficult part of a judge's
work is, first of all, not to be pressured by the numbers of people who
are before him, by the backlog, by the inexoj-able conveyor belt that
faces him every day, to take any sliortcuts at all, that the fair trial is a
crucial thing, and to be sure people are properly I'epresented.
I just want to give you a short thing that happened to me yesterday
morning as I was parking my car. A young black man came running
up and said, ''You are Judge Kichette?" And I said, ''Yes." He said,
'T really want to thank you because you helped me." And I said, "How
did I help you?"
He said, "I came in and I was going to plead guilty on a ra])e case
and when you were talking to me, 1 told you that I didn't think I had
really done it and you said, 'Then you ought to go and get a jury
trial.' "
And he said, "And I got a jury trial and I was acquitted." He said,
"I just want you to know I was an innocent man."
It would have been very simple to take a mechanistic view and say,
"All right, his lawyer says he is going to plead guilty, the district
attorney is going to be agreeable to it," but you have to take the time
to know that individual knows exactly what he is doing. That is what
I do and I think a great number of judges do, and for this we are
frequently, you knoAv, pilloried. But it is very crucial and essential.
The sentencing process is a very important one and I take the
position that the judge has to become the interpreter for the community
of its sense of law and order, and he or she has to supply the omis-
sions and correct the uncei-tainties and harmonize those results wdth
justice. So that is the most difficult problem that a judge faces, given
the youthfulness of these offenders, which is an absolute fact, and given
the reality that much of street crime is drug related — I would say 65
percent of the cases that come before me of aggravated robberies, as-
saults, et cetera, all involve people with serious drug haliits.
It is not unusual for a defendant to say during the sentencing process
that he is on 15 bags of heroin a day. And I have had defendants who
have been on 30 bags of heroin a day. One defendant whose arms were
9.-5-158— 73— pt. 3 G
1040
so infected from his puncture marks tliey were swollen out like bal-
loons, and lie had already had surgery that rendered his fingers numb
and lifeless to prevent the spread of this kind of infection. This was a
young man who was 21.
So that to ignore this reality is, I think, to not only blindfold justice,
but to also put strong hearing plugs in the ears of justice.
Chairman Pepper. Judge, would you kindly express an opinion as
to the adequacy of the treatment and rehabilitational facilities in the
Philadelphia area for drug addicts ?
Judge RiCHETTE. I can tell you that I think they are totally inade-
quate, Mr. Pepper. In our whole State correctional system there is no
coherent treatment program per se, so that when the district attorney
comes in and demands penitentiarj^ sentences in the State correctional
system for drug addicts, what really occurs is that this person will
be in a state of enforced detoxification which holds no promise at all
that the moment he is released he will not return to crime.
I would like to just interject at this point another experience that
I had in which a man had served a full 20-year sentence for an armed
robbery. A full 20 years. It was one of the most serious armed rob-
beries that ever occurred. Less than 3 months after he was released
from prison, he was back on heroin and he masterminded a $125,000
Brink's robbery at our Philadelphia General Hospital, a ]Dayroll rob-
bery, in which the money was taken. It was a carefully planned
scheme. They wore hospital uniforms, et cetera.
This man confessed while the police gave him methadone, and in
return for a guilty plea he was given a sentence of 2 to 4 years in our
State penitentiary.
Now, this is the kind of disfunctional addicts for whom absolutely
no treatment has been provided during the 20 years he was in. When
he got out, he immediately engaged in this kind of crime. And when
people talk about tough sentences or tough crimes, they have omitted
the most important component of all; namely, the character of the
defendant and his motivation for committing the crime.
I don't think any justice system can operate effectively if it over-
looks the individual, human defendant who is before that judge. Be-
cause we do not service to society to warehouse these people for short
or long periods of time and we have done nothing to turn them around
in any way to cure them of whatever has compelled them to commit
these crimes.
We don't have any drug program and the sentencing alternative I
face and the other judges face, when we deal with someone who has a
serious felony crime and no prior record, and we know that person is
an addict, and our psychiatrist says he is a suitable candidate for a
treatment program, is either to send him into the State system or put
him into a community-based treatment program, or a hospital facility
in which there is absolutely no security.
The only thing that the court can do, if it really wants to set up a
therapeutic program for this individual, is to go about and hope that
somewhere in that community an in-patient treatment program can
be found. But then you run into this problem, the people who are
running the drug programs are, I submit, quite unrealistic, too, because
they insist on a humanistic, open approach and they abhor anything
that resembled locked doors and security measures because they feel
they are antitherapeutic.
1041
This is one of the great problems we have, that the psychiatrists
and the lawyers and the judges cannot synthesize their goals into some-
thing where each gives up a bit for the well-being of the whole system.
I have had to work out an elaborate program and send people to a
hospital that is excellentl}- run, called Eagleville, but where the situa-
tion is totally open and a person can leave. Several of the addicts I
have put in there have just Avalked out and bench warrants have had
to be issued for them. They had to be brought back in.
In the last analysis, a person who really cannot cope with an open
treatment situation is signing his own court order to jail, because we
have nothing in between. What I think we need desperately in our
State system is an intermediate facility which is not a jail, but is some-
thing more than an open therapeutic community. There is Federal
legislation to create this kind of intermediate facility in the federal
system, but people are not urging this because, as I said at the outset,
tiie entire emphasis to the public is that judges are being lenient when
they send these people to treatment facilities, instead of pointing out
that the judge has only this as a rational sentencing alternative.
Chairman Peiter. If a person is not rich and has an addiction to
heroin, costing — in testimony from various witnesses — up to $200 a
day, it is inevitable that individual has to go out and commit crime to
sustain the addiction.
Judge RiCHETTE. Xo question about it.
Chairman Pepper. So it seems to me that if we can develop an ade-
quate system of dealing with the addiction — that is, a medical program
for dealing with it— I wouldn't have the slightest hesitation about
voting for legislation that v/ould authorize the involuntary incarcera-
tion or involuntary taking into custody and control of that individual.
But the only thing that puzzles me is methadone, which is about the
best thing ^\e now have. Although some of these programs do give a
good bit of relief, sometimes adecjuate relief, methadone is a narcotic
and it is addictive. "We have been told by experts that only about 35
percent of the addicts really should take methadone, and tliey should
be carefull}^ examined before they are exposed to it.
But even that, to protect society from the inevitable crime that
those people are going to commit, I think we ought to have legislation.
When there is a proper adjudication; I would think there ought to be
a fair trial. The criminal denies lie is an addict when the question of
being taken into custody is involved. That person should be entitled
to a trial to determine whether or not he or she is an addict, a con-
firmed addict, which means heavy monetary demands to provide for
the addiction.
Judge RiCHETTE. I would submit the best way to identify this popu-
lation is by looking through your arrest reports.
Chairman Pepper. That is what I said.
Judge Ricitette. Tliey identify themselves by the crimes they com-
mit. But all of the ivi-ograms that exist in Philadelpliia for a more
enlightened medical treatment of these people, exclude anyone who
has been convicted of so-called violent crime.
Chairman Pepp?:r. That is self-defeating.
Judge RiciiETiT.. Absolutely. That is my argimient. And I am say-
h"ig that where there is an overriding medical factor, then the solution
ought to be a medical one, but it ought to be an involuntaiy kind of
1042
commitment., and we oiiffht to liave that kind of intermediate facility
that would be like a mental hospital.
Chainnan Pepper. That would reduce the amount of street-crime
considerahly, wouldn't it ?
Judffe RiCHETTE. I am sure of it.
Chainnan Pepper. If we could o-et some leo;is]ation.
Judg-e RiCHETTE. I also think the so-called pushers who are ari'ested
in the main arc pusher- addicts, and any legislation that is going to have
mandatory prison sentence for ]>ushers, should distinguish between
nonaddict and addict pushers. Many of the people who com.mit these
crimes that I have seen, who are pushers, do it in order to finance their
own habit.
I just want to talk briefly about a few other things, because I know
my time is limited. I Avant to talk, first of all, about plea bargaining,
because I wanted to address myself to some of the anti-plea-bargaining
statements that have been made to you earlier.
As a judge, I think that plea bargaining is an honorable and legiti-
mate tool of the justice system. And when it is engaged in fairly and
openly, giving always the judge the discretion to reject the plea, this
is absolutely a traditional part of our procession which ought not to
be eliminated.
Now, when the judge feels that for any reason it is an inappropriate
recommendation or that something involmitary has occurred, the judge
can reject it. just as I did in the case of that rape case I talked earlier
about. And I ha^-e had cases where the district attorney of Philadel-
phia, who was so opposed to plea bargaining, has come into my court
and has recommended ]3robation in one case, a young man named Na-
thaniel Beriy, who held a gun to a clerk in a supermarket — he had nn
addiction, no overriding medical factor — just because he would turn
State's evidence and identify the other two defendants, he was going
to be given probation, and the others, I am sure, were going to get long
jail recommendations.
I think one of the things a judge always ought to find out is what is
going to be the sentencing recommendation for the codefendants. Be-
cause nothing is more destructive than for men to go to jail and to
know that one of them is serving one-third the length of sentence for
precisely the same crime, simplj- because he played ball with the dis-
trict attorney.
So I think we have to leave the plea-bargaining situation where it
is. And for heaven's sake, let's return to some faith in the rationalitv
and intelligence and sensitivity of judges and stop sniping away and
trying to usurp their functions.
Also, I feel very strongly that there is nothing wrong with leaving
the sentencing- process exactly Avhere it is, and giving the judge that
authority which he noAv has under the law, of imposing sentence. I
think if you set up panels, such as you have with courts en banc, one
of two things will happen.
The other two men or women, as the case will be. will defer to the
judge who actually heard the case because there is no substitute for
hearing that case yourself, evaluating the quality of the testimony,
watching the defendant's reaction thiough the case, et cetera. So the
other two judges will either defer to the superior knowledge of the
case that judge has, or they will veto out of their own prejudice any-
1043
thino; tliat that jiiflge has to offer. In any event, it is not going- to be
a fruitful procedure.
If a judge wants to get assistance now on sentencing, he can do that,
and I do tliat frequently. I call up my colleagues and say, '"AVhat would
you do in this kind of a situation, given this kind of psychiatric
i-eport?"
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me. Do you believe it is desirable for the
judge to fix the maximum sentence rather than to leave the total
sentence to a panel ?
Judge RicHE'ims. Oh, yes. I am coming to that, because I think what
happened, the judges have been absolutely eliminated from the process.
I think when parole considerations arise, virtually no attention is
])aid to any of the judge's recommendations. I write letters all of the
time recommending people for parole, or against parole, and my rec-
ommendations are totally ignored. I would very much like to have
review provisions so that these cases could be brought back in the case
of probation as well in penitentiary sentences for periodic reviews. I
think that sentences could be modified and could be revised, and this
ought not to he left up to a group of citizens who very often knoAV noth-
ing about the case, who do not liave the benefit of any representation
by counsel, and who were thoroughly unfamiliar.
This man is just another number as far as they are concerned, but
not so with the trial judge and the sentencing judge. Believe me, those
people make an impact on you, and you remember them very vividly.
Chairman Pepper. I heard at a conference I just attended, somebody
Icnowledgeable about the Federal system, said that there was some
16.000 cases which had to be considered by the Federal parole board,
and each case was given 10 minutes.
Judge RiciiEiTE. Oh, vos, that is right.
Chairman Pepper. Tlie applicant for parole, or his representatives,
Avere given 10 minutes to make their presentation.
Judofe RiCHETTE. It is just absurd: absolutely. And unless the
judge is put back into the situation, which is a very important com-
ponent 01 the justice system — I am ver}^ much for having judges re-
sponsible for the administration of prisons and for the institution of
programs in ]>risons — I tliink that putting them in another bureaucracy
ties our hands and also diminishes the kind of impact we can make.
^^Hiat good is it to send a man to prison knowing Avhat he needs,
if you in some way cannot say to him, "I am going to make sure you
get this" ? "We are all liars and hypocrites because we tell people we are
sending them to institutions where they are going to be rehabilitated,
and when they write back to us, as these prisoners frequently do — I
have long files from prisoners and we answer our prison niail con-
stantly, and they complain they can't get in.to this program, it doesn't
exist, and that they were doing very well in a vocational kind of pro-
gram and then suddenly they were removed from it.
Our hands are tied. There is nothing we can do except make a phone
call and beg whoever is running that prison to give some consideration.
I really think we belong in every level of th.e system and instead
of pushing us out of it, we ought to be built back into it. Because, as
I said at the outset, I think that judges are the forces of society, that is
thie balancing force, that will balance individual rights plus com-
munity values. And these two things are vci-y important. My fear is
1044
that the rights of the individual and the value and dignity of the
individual human being are just being sacrificed under the banner
of "law and order.''
You can't have that without justice and justice is the key thing.
Finally, I just wanted to say that I am very concerned with the
way in which rape cases are prosecuted. I do believe that rape is a
serious aspect of street crime. If you are going to come before a com-
mittee and talk about terrified citizens, may I tell you that the largest
group of terrified citizens in our major cities are women. You can't
get women to come out to a meeting at night. You can't get women
involved in any program that involves night travel. We have been
setting up a "hot line" for child abuse programs in Pliiladelphia and
our big problem in getting volunteers is women will not come out
at night to go to the hospital because the hospital is in a high-crime
area.
These are well-motivated, wonderful people. So rape is a very serious
problem for women. It is estimated in Philadelphia that only 1 out of
every 10 rapes is reported. The reason for this is because of the in-
credible gauntlet that the rape victim has to run, which is unlike any
other experience that any other victim of street crime has to undergo.
This all stems from the fact, I submit to you. Senator, that our rape
law is founded on propositions which have no place in the 20th
century society.
Women are not property, women are not sexually aggressive; men
are not sexually irresistible. The victim has to prove her innocence as
much as the defendant is protected by the presumption of innocence.
I presided over about 50 rape cases in the last IG months, and I have
come to the conclusion that the defense of consent is absolutely un-
necessar}', that we ought to think about rape in terms of situational
force, a situation in which force is used to achieve a sexual result, and
that a woman's past sexual history has no bearing on her credibility,
that whether or not embarrassing questions are to be put to her for
the purpose of discrediting her, that that is an issue that absolutely
ought to be resolved in favor of the victim.
Now, we just have had a new crime code passed in Pennsylvania,
and we were appalled to discover that slipped into this code was
the provision the judge must charge the jury to receive the testimony
of the rape with special scrutiny because of the highly emotional nature
of her testimonj'. We thought that this was reflecting a typically male
attitude, that I would say is a sexist attitude, in which there is great
suspicion surrounding even the possibility of rape.
I have heard fellow lawyers say they didn't really believe anybody
could be raped. So that we have a growing feeling in our society
that women are easy prey, that rape is a crime that largely goes un-
punished, because it will go unreported. I know of an Evening Bulle-
tin newspaper reporter who was brutally raped in her house, and one
of my neighbors who was raped in the very public garage where I
parked my car. Neither one of these women would report the crime
because they did not want to go through the police process.
This is a very, very common phenomenon.
Chairman Pepper. It seems to me that the circumstances under which
is a contact occurred would be very, very influential. I realize that there
are unscrupulous women
1045
Judge RiciiETTE. Oh, sure.
Chairman Pepper [continuing-]. As well as unscrupulous men. And
YOU can't allow ordinarily the word of a woman to send a man to a
long term in prison, but it is another thing where you have a boy and
giri in social contact with consent between them in places where they
might have had intimacy, in a case like that.
i remember there was a case in one of the British courts where the
girl consented to go with a fellow into a remote area and the court said
she practically indicated her consent by consenting to go into a situa-
tion like that.
But where a person is walking along the street peacefully, in her
own hometown or some other sanctuaiy, suddenly to be attacked by
such person with whom she would never have any social contact in
most cases, and eventually assaulted, threatened with a weapon, and
the like, I know all of the qviestions that the defense lawyers ask in
these cases, but it would seem to me under those circumstances that it
would be almost absurd to believe there was consent under that. You
don't approach a person.
Judge EicnETTE. Correct. I would also say to you, that the presence
or absence of a weapon is not so crucial because, ver}^ often, a women
is so intimidated by the entire situation of the strange man making
this demand on her that that situation in and of itself renders her
agreement, if you please, an involuntary one,
I think we have to take account of the fact that women are not
trained by our society to fight their way out of such a situation. And
to expect a woman to put up physical resistance or to interpret the
lack of physical resistance as consent, which is what happens in our
courts, "Did you fight, did you kick, did your scream ?" is an unrealistic
demand to make and gives the men in that situation an absolutely ex-
ploitative advantage.
The other thing about rape is that it is a repetitive, compulsive
crime, that sheer incarceration in and of itself for a limited term
of time will not change that behavior, and the worst repeaters that we
have in our courts are the rapists.
So I think we do need a different kind of sentencing practice with
respect to rape.
Chairman Pepper. "What age groups are the ones vs-ho are the most
numerous in the rape cases ?
Judge Richette. Eighteen or younger. Twelve — I will start with 12 ;
we have the 12-year-old boys— I woukl say it starts at 12. 1 discussed it
witli one of our psychiatrists and he said at about age 50 the drive
diminishes.
But the important thing is, it isn't the sexual gratification that the
rapist is seeking, but the thrill and the excitement of tliat moment of
complete control over the woman. "Woman after woman ]ias testified
in my court. I had one woman who was absolutely lucid because she
was a physician and she was raped by a mental patient, and while
this rape was iroing on she liad sufUciont mental discipline that she
could think and record mentally everything that was liappeningto her.
She noted physiological things that were going on and the man was
almost totally impotent, which is generally true. Contrarv to the
public's stereotype that it is liighly sexed people who do this, this is
1046
not true. It is insecure people with terrific hangups who get their
gratification in this way, by that kind of controL
That has to be understood. I don't think we really have done enough
research.
Finally, I just want to say what I think New York City is doing —
and I understand you had that lieutenant here before you — is just
excellent. And we have urged our Philadelphia police commissioner
to institute that kind of practice. He is not very receptive to it be-
cause he says it would inject a sexual bias in the proceedings.
I pointed out to him we already have a sexual bias in that the in-
vestigators are of the same sex as the defendants. So if you are going
to have a bias, why not have it in favor of the victim ?
I feel strongly about that because I think that rape is very important.
I have very little else to say except that I would sincerely hope we
remember always that the process of justice is just never finished and
that it reproduces itself generation after generation, in changing
forms, and I think I would agree with Roscoe Pound, whom I am
quoting from now, when he says, "Today, as in the past, it calls for
the bravest and best people to be in that justice system."
I would like very much to speak here in defense of the judiciary. I
think that the judges who are being attacked today are not softheaded
people; they are hardlieaded people who believe in due process rights
and who still believe that rehabilitation is a legitimate goal of the
criminal justice system.
Thank you very much for allowing me to come.
Chairman Pepper. Well, it is exciting to hear you, Judge Richette.
We are most grateful to you for coming.
Mr. Mann?
Mr. ]\Iann. On the rape question, what specific recommendation
do you have for change in the law ? Most of the matters we are talk-
ing about are evidentiary in nature.
Judge Richette. I didn't hear you.
Mr. jSIann. INIost of the angles we talked about on rape were some-
what evidentiary in nature. But, specifically legal changes, I gather
one would be to make it inadmissible to attack a woman's reputation,
except upon specific violations of the law involving moral turpitude.
Judge Richette. As in any other case. A victim being cross-exam-
ined on an aggravated robbery is never asked about his past criminal
record.
Mr. Mann. So you would have an evidentiary rule which would
prevent attacks of her character. What else? The same law as in
rules of evidence ?
Judge Richette, I think the definition of force ought to be a defi-
nition that includes constructive force as well as actual force, which
is a legal distinction, but that also the doctrine of constructive force
should be extended so that the force is inherent in the situation.
I have in mind a situation that I tried v/here a young nurse was
taken by four men to a roominghouse in a different ethnic area than
she was familiar with. It was an all-male roominghouse. They raped
her, they sodomized her for about 4 hours. Then the man who owned
the room came upon the scene after they had left and she was pulling
herself together.
1047
He walked into tlic room and lie said — by his OAvn testimony — he
took the stand and said she was as friirhtened as a leaf, shakin<2:, and
he said to her. "What is your problem?" And she said, "I would like
to get home." She was dressing at that point and he said, "If you are
nice to me, I will help you get home." Whereupon, she stopped dress-
ing, undressed and had relations with him. And his defense, of course,
was "consent."
And I said there was no consent in that situation whatever, that
it was a situational force that had been used. And I would make it a
case-to-case thing, as the chairman was suggesting. You have to look
at the situation and that is all that the jury should consider, whether
or not there was actual or constructive or inherent force in that
situation.
On the issue of whether she said yes or nothing — because to say
nothing is to consent, unless there is an active rebuffing or denial — ^the
jury is charged on those lines of consent. And very often a rapist is
let go free.
Mr. Mann. Well, I know we are talking about 50 different defini-
tions in different States as to what constitutes force. Frankly, the
defuiition in my State would certainly cover constructive force. I am
not sure there is a Federal solution to the definition of rape.
The question of the judge's duty to be more active in bringing about
reform. Why aren't they ?
Judge RiCHEiTE. Because I think many of them, Mr. IMann, have
come from a background that is not activist in orientation. Let's be
very candid. Judges are politically appointed and it is not the wave-
makers and the dissidents who are in line to get these appointments.
My own background is an activist, intellectual one. I have been a
writer, a teacher, and have been intimately involved in legal reforms.
There are a number of people who are serving on the bench who are
of a similar background, but they are in the minority, and most of
the jirdges feel this is outside their proAance.
What I think is needed is a vast and enormous program of judicial
education and I, for one, am very pleased that Chief Justice Burger
takes this position that our penitentiary system and criminal justice
system is totally a national disgrace and judges need to hear it, and
need to hear it from people of that caliber.
I think you have a new breed of judges coming in who reall}^ don't
accept the fact that all they have to do is wear black robes and look
dignified and utter the right legal phrases at the right legal moments
so they won't get revei-sed. Our obligation is much more.
Mr. Mann. I certainly agree they left a tremendous vacuum. Re-
form usually awaits the election of some progressive lawyer to the
legislature who then promotes some needed reforms. There is no other
organized group; the organized bar is not criminally oriented.
Judge RicHETTE. That is correct.
Mr. Mann. Judges don't meet and discuss anything but their own
salaries, usually.
Judge RiCHETTE. You are right.
IMr. Mann. All right. I quite agree with your assessment of the
process of plea bargaining. I see nothing wrong with a prosecutor,
in his wisdom and discretion and experience, making a calculated
judgment as to the nature of the case and the nature of his proof
and other things
1048
Judfre RiCHETTE. Exactly.
Mr. Mann fcontinuing] . And presenting it to the defense counsel
and to the judge.
I propounded the question to Mr. Specter. He and I don't have the
same definition of plea bargaining. He, frankly, did offer sentence
bargaining — but it wouldn't shut off, apparently.
I don't believe I have any specific questions.
Chairman Pepper. Counsel, do you have any questions?
Mr. NoLDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge, how does the failure
of our correctional system affect your determination as to the type of
sentence to impose?
Judge RiCHETTE. Well, it causes me great personal anguish, but
there are situations, of course, where there is no alternative but to
send that man or woman to the penitentiary. I sent 76 people last
year to jail for long sentences, just had to. They were repeaters, they
Avere compulsive, antisocial tvpes, who were just continually reeking
destruction on the community and there was no other alternative
for it.
But I look back at their criminal records and when the probation
department does its presentence report, T always make sure they have
got the juvenile record in. And you would see when this bov was 14, a
psychiatrist or psycholoffist said he must be taken out of his environ-
ment, he must be given "X Y Z," and none of it was done.
Chairman Pepper. You believe, then, that if we can do something
effective for the juveniles we would reduce the volume of crime
enormously ?
Jud.ofe RiCHETTE. Absolutelv.
Chairman Pepper. Most of the people who are repeaters as adults
had juvenile criminal records ?
Judge RiCHETTE. No question of it. And when we send these people
to jail, they usually have sired offspring and because they are not
there and because the family is without a father, we are just creating
new problems for another s:eneration.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Mann.
Mr. Mann. The continuum to which you referred, I think that is a
good point and an interesting one. But taking the necessity of the
continuum and applying the recommendations you have about the
judge maintaining: a continuing interest in a specific case being per-
haps more desirable than the parole board, the necessity of picking
up this juvenile, following him on through his career, seems to me to
indicate the necessity of some other agency, other than the court,
other than the prosecutor's office, but a continuing agency which I
think we generally put in the category of probation, parole, pardon,
supervision.
Now, such an agency could provide the continuum over a period of
years that a judge could not.
Further — and I haven't formulated any details — T question your
suggestion that a judge might be better equipped to follow the defend-
ant to the conclusion of his sentence, because of the general problems
in this country, the tremendous volume of cases that exist and the
necessity of making the most efficient use of the judge's time, and being
able to give each case the individual attention you would like to.
1049
Of course, in other jurisdictions, the lack of even presentence inves-
tigation, the lack of anv real information on the part of the judge,
the judge sits there and by the seat of his pants makes a quick judg-
ment without even an adequate record being prepared by the local
prosecutor, in that type of situation.
I would say that type of situation is in the majority in this country.
Judge RiCHETTE. Yes, it is.
Mr. Mann. Rather than presentence psychiatric report.
So, given those circumstances, I am wondering if wo don't need a
more sophisticated agency to follow that thing once he comes in the
criminal justice system.
Judge RiCHETTE. Well, if we do have such an agency, I was suggest-
ing the judge be a very important part of that agency and not be
co-opted out of it, which is what happens now. We have absolutely no
rolo to play.
The other thing. Mr. Mann, judges waste an enormous amount of
time, and I can tell you that. We have the most confused calendar
system 3'ou can imagine in Philadelphia, I am strongly in favor of
individual calendars and I am strongly in favor of each of the judges
having an assigned quantity of work that must be done.
I sit in court waiting for hours for cases to be sent down to me and
then they arrive and cither the district attorney is not prepared or the
defense counsel hasn't had time to interview his clients. Some con-
sideration occurs that makes you absolutely required to continue this
case and nothing fills that vacuum. It costs us $1,000 each day just to
keep our courtrooms open. We waste a lot of time.
Once again, because the hardware people have persuaded the courts
that cJfHcient court administration is a function of computers, and all
we have done is computerized chaos. We have millions of dollars'
worth of computers spewing out printouts in Philadelphia, and we
have a huge backlog and we have judges who sit by waiting for work.
So I think we have to put, you know, human intelligence back into
this thing and we have to get the judges working to set up their own
calendars.
Chairman Pepper. Judge Richette, you didn't hear Justice Ross ?
Judge Richette. No, I missed him.
Chairman Pepper. He was very good, because he has been desig-
nated as the court administrator of the New York court system.
Judge Richette. Wonderful.
Chairman Pepper. And lately of the criminal division of the Su-
preme Court. He was talking about some of those very things you are
talking about. You start to get the prisoners down on time from the
jails, and so on. He has been able to reduce the backlog in the New
Yoi'k court system an enormous amount within 2 years by virtue of
getting all of these component parts to work together, to fall into
place.
Justice Clark has taken the position it is better to have a good ad-
ministrator for a judge than it is to appoint a new judge. He says in
the Federal system it costs about $125,000 a year to sustain a new
judge. You get a very good administrator for much loss than that.
And he said he can do a better job of expediting the disposition of
cases.
1050
So you might consider and inquire about what Judge Eoss has been
doing in New York in some appropriate way.
Judge KiCHETTE. I read about him in the New York Times but I
have never heard him in depths, and I understand lie was excellent here
this morning.
Mr. NoLDE. In that connection, it appears the impression is created
that Justice Koss' success is due not to computers or hardware but the
personal equation to which you referred.
Judge RiCHETTE. Of course.
Mr. NoLDE. With his own personal dynamism he was able to direct
that system in the right direction.
Judge RiCHETTE. But he can train other people and that is what we
need. We need a Judge Ross institute to train other judges to do this.
Chairman Pepper. Do you think that might be a proper subject for
funding by LEAA ?
Judge RiCHETTE. Absolutely ; you see, judges are put on the bench
and they have no background for what they are to do. They come from
the practice of law and they are untrained. And going out to Nevada
and taking this great crash course which is like a crash course for the
bar, doesn't really help you run a system.
We walk into a system that is vast and incoherent and no one seems
to make it work. I say, if we have in this country men and women
judges who have achieved successes, they ought to train and teach
others.
Chairman Pepper. Speaking about having to wait in your office or
the courtroom for cases to be brought to your attention, I remember
that we were holding a hearing in the ceremonial courtroom in the
Federal Building in San Francisco, I believe it was in 1969, and one
of the judges told us that one morning when he went down to the
courtroom and opened court. He was supposed to try a criminal case
and, lo. and behold, he couldn't find the defendant.
Consequently, he had no other cases that could be set then.
Judge RiCHETTE. That is right.
Chairman Pepper. And he lost that whole day, simply because the
defendant wasn't there. If he had had a good administrator he would
have found out where that defendant was and he would be there at
the right time the next day.
Judge RiCHETTE. We sometimes have defendants with fairly com-
mon names like Johnson or Smith, and they send the wrong man
down. That's the end of that. Because it takes a full day to transport
a prisoner back and forth through our machinery.
]\Ir. NoLDE. Judge, in the cause of violent offenders, what alt^erna-
tives do you consider in sentencing? "\^^iat alternatives are available
to you as a judge ?
Judge RiCHETTE. Mr. Nolde, if there is some strong medical under-
lying reason for the violence, hopefully, one could find a hospital
facility. But that is very rare because our mental hospitals will not
take people who are not, frankly, psychotic. These men and women
fall into a no-man's land. Tliey are not psychotic. There have been ail
kinds of names assigned to them, psychopaths, and so forth. vSo that
that possibility is not often fruitful. So there is only, really, onft
al ternative and that is incarceration for a long term.
Ml . NoLDE. In the cases of drug offenders ?
1051
Judcre RicHETTE. The same. The same, because as I said, the com-
munity-based facilities often do not provide the proper security
measures.
Mr. NoLDE. What is your opinion of the diversion programs in Pliil-
adelphia that divert offenders out of the system into treatment
alternatives ?
Judge RicHETTE. They are very inadequate at the moment and their
administratio]! is abysmally bad. A person is put on ARD, but there
is never a followup report, nobody checks on whether or not he went
into that treatment program. And when he is rearrested for a subse-
quent crime, there is no way to know whether or not he had ever been
in a treatment program and what his success or failure rate was in
that program, because there are just no records kept.
So to me ARD is worthless. All you have done is have a nice friendly
conference witli somebody and you said, "We are going to give you a
chance to go get help." But nol)ody knows what has to be done with
these people, which is that they have to be supervised in the help, they
zieed a great deal of human intervention. Just to say to somebody,
"You are going to go to a clinic," isn't enough, not with these multi-
problem people we have. We have people who are born losers, people
who just have no faith in themselves or the people around them. They
need a lot of human support. The programs at the moment are just
not well implemented. They are paper programs and all you see are
paper results.
Mr. NoLDE. What about the eligibility requirements ?
Judge RiciiETTE. I think the eligibility requirements are unrealistic.
The people who need those programs most are excluded from them.
You are dealing with a peripheral group of people who are potentially
harmful because they can get more deeply involved in antisocial be-
havior and when they do get more deeply involved, you know nothing
more about them from their having been in that program.
I think a program that doesn't have internal controls, that can't
measure its own results, is not a serious program. They have no way
to evaluate liow effective they are.
Mr. NoLDE. Judge Richette, I understand you put 89 defendants on
probation last year.
Judge Richette. Yes, I did.
Mr. NoLDE. Only 14 were subsequently rearrested. How do you ac-
count for such an outstanding success rate ?
Judge Richette. Well, they are still alive and at large, and it may
not be such a great figure.
Xo; I think what I was saying at the beginning is important. I
think if you have had a vast longitudinal experience with people, and
you have read a lot of reports and you have interacted on a 1-to-l basis
with a lot of people as a lawyer, you get to have a kind of intuitive
feel, which I submit to you is part of the art of judging. There is an
art of judging which I am slowly learning. But this quality is com-
pletely devalued by the vilification, I think, and the pillorying of
judges.
You do, after all, have a group of people in a society who do develop
a kind of expertness and the expertness is something that is intangible.
But whenever I put anybody on probation, I think it through very,
very carefully, because I have only dealt with serious crimes and I
1052
know that the prosecutor will rim to the press and will have a front
page story on the fact I put this man on probation. This can be an
intimidating force and be a negative one or it can be a positive one
and make you really think through what you have done and force you
to have a valid rationale in each case, and I have had that.
I bring everybody in. I make them come in with their families,
with community people. If there is a plan for probation, I want the
person who is administering that plan in front of me. I want to hear
exactly what is going on and I really think that face-to-face human
contact is very important. People feel they are accountable to you.
Mr. NoLDE. Judge, one final question. Wliat is your reaction to the
statement we heard earlier this morning : tougher sentences for tougher
criminals ?
Judge Rici-iETTE. It wasn't for tougher criminals. It was for tougher
crimes, which is very important, because in our jurisdiction we have
a way of overindicting people. The Philadelphia Inquirer did a com-
plete survey on this. You overindict so you have a huge kind of crimi-
nal statistics built up.
I feel that we ought to look at the human being first and foremost.
If this human being who is in front of us is not amenable to any of
the limited treatment facilities we have available, then we have no
alternative but to send that person to jail. But I think we should be
very sanguine about the fact all we are doing is postponing the day
of reckoning with that person.
We have protected the community for a limited number of years,
and what is going to happen when that person returns ?
Mr. NoLDE. Thank you. Judge Richette. I have no further questions,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Judge, we are certainly indebted to you for this
very stimulating and, may I add, inspiring presentation you made
to us.
Judge Richette. Thank you.
Chairman Pepper. It is very gratifying to know there are people
like you on the bench and I am sure there are many others and a
growing number. I hope you will see your tribe will rapidly increase.
Judge Richette. Thank you.
Chairman Pepper. Again, I want to express my regret that Harvard
didn't change its position.
Judge Richette. Thank you very much. I was sitting here think-
ing this is a great dream come true, that I would be in front of you
some day.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you so much. It has been an honor to
have you.
We will now call on the Honorable Don Riegle from the Seventh
Congressional District of the State of Michigan to present the next
witness.
Don, we welcome any statement you care to make and invite you to
sit with the committee for the remainder of the day.
1053
STATEMENT OF EON. DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR., A U.S. REPRESENTA-
TIVE FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. EiEGLE. Thank yon, Mr. Chairman. I am away from another
subcommittee that is in session right now.
I appreciate tlie honor of sitting witli the committee here, and I want
to say at the outset how much I appreciate your work and your leader-
ship in this area for such a long period of time. You have friends all
aci'oss the country, across party lines, for the good work you have
done.
I just want to add my brief words of appreciation to so many others
I am sure you hear.
Chairman Pepper. Tliank you ver}' much.
Mr. RiEGLE. It is an honor for me to introduce Robert F. Leonard,
who is the prosecuting attorney for Genesee Countj^, Mich. This county
is contained witliin my congressional district and I had the opportunity
to witness Mr. Leonard in action for many years. He has compiled
an outstanding record of service which people of our district very
favorably responded to in terms of reelecting him in successive elec-
tions.
Among his achievements has been expediting the disposition of
criminal justice cases and that is Avhat he is here to speak about today.
I think you will find him a very laiowledgeable and useful witness to
the committee.
There are many in my State who feel that he may someday be attor-
ney general of ^Michigan. So at some future date you may have him
back in another capacity. It is a pleasure for me to introduce to the
committee Prosecuting Attorney Robert Leonard.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much, Mr. Riegle. We appreciate
your coming to be with us today and the support this committee has
had in its etforts to try to do something about the crime situation. We
are vei-y grateful to you.
Mr. Leonard, we are very well pleased to have you. Again, I want
to apologize to you for the delay. You saw the circumstances here
and you have been most patient and I hope we have not inconvenienced
you too much.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. LEONARD, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY,
GENESEE COUNTY, MICH.
Mr. Leonard. Xot at all. I certainly want to express my appreciation
for being asked here and say to Congressman Riegle that I appreciate
his introduction. He is a friend of mine for many years.
Chairman Pepper. A distinguished Representative.
Mr. Leoxapj). Absolutely, I might say, I know this is not a political
meeting, but I am a staunch Democrat and, Don Riegle, I voted for
Don Riegle when he was a Republican, too. That is how much I
thought of him.
1054
Chairman Pepper. We are very glad to have him on our side now.
Mr. Leonard. Thank you.
I do appreciate the opportunity to appear here and I am honored.
I have heard of you for many, many years, Mr. Pepper, and, as I
say, I am honored to be here. I heard of the work of this com-
mittee, doing an outstanding job. I had the pleasure of talking to Mr.
Nolde and some of the other members, and Tom O'Halloran, who came
up a week or two ago to see us. We are very pleased to see him. It is
nice to be visiting in Washington.
I have a prepared statement that I won't burden you with reading.
Chairman Pepper. Without objection, we will insert your prepared
statement in full in the record, Mr. Leonard, and you may sum-
marize it.
[Mr. Leonard's prepared statement appears at the end of his testi-
mony.]
Mr. Leonard. Thank you very much.
I do want to just say how much I enjoyed Judge Bichette's remarks.
She obviously is an outstanding jurist and outstanding woman. Many
of the things that she said, I was going to say, too, so I will try to
quickly pass over those areas and just give you some of my ideas, which
will very much parallel her thinking.
I see the major problems in our criminal justice system which, as you
know^, is under heavy attack throughout the United States today by
many people, some knowledgeable, some not so knowledgeable, but all
coming to the same conclusion — that there is something wrong with
the system.
In considering these attacks and trying to understand what is wrong
with the system, I came to a couple of conclusions and I would just like
to kind of touch on these areas, if I may, and what solutions I might
have for them.
I think one of the major pro])lems, of course, is the prohibitive delay
between the time of arrest and time of actual trial or disposition of
the case. That will kill the system if we don't correct it.
Another problem is the lack of finality, the lack of judgment. You
never have a final judgment in any kind of a criminal case these days.
Not every case, but a great number of them. In our jurisdiction, for
example, the judge, when he sentences anyone to jail almost encour-
ages, by -vdrtue of the rules of the Supreme Court, a person to appeal.
Now, I see nothing wrong with appeals and I have no objection to
them, but it is an example of what encourages tliis lack of finality.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me. I just returned from a conference in
England and discovered there that immediately after the sentence is
passed they go to prison. They are sent to prison and they are in prison
while the appeal is pending. Here, of course, people don't go.
Mr. IjEONard. In most cases, they don't. That is right.
The third area, as I was mentioning, is the problem of diminishing
credibility in our criminal justice system.
T would like to maybe take them in reverse order, if I may.
Today, constantly you are hearing great discussions about the prob-
lem of street crime. We identify street crime in most cases as violent
crime or burglaries of consideral:)le nature. And right now these are
concerns of ours and concerns of the pu1)lic and they have to be dealt
with. We have to continue to deal with them.
1055
But one of the problems with the thrust and the emphasis in this
area on street crime is the failure to look at other types of crime, and
that is the crime of public corruption, the white-collar crime, and
organized crime.
When you consider where the emphasis is today, it is on what we
call visible crime, crimes that people see and respond to and want
something done about, speak out against. As a result, we respond to
that. We respond in law enforcement, we respond in the legislatures,
and Ave respond in the executive, to do something about this. The result
is that our primary efforts and direction against crime are in this area
and very little is done in the other areas.
The result of this is, when you consider who the people are that we
are focusing our efforts in crime against, invariably it is the poor,
minorities, usually black when we talk about minority people.
Now, there is no group that is more indigTiant about the conunission
of crimes in their connnunity than the blacks. But they are also recog-
nizing a very important factor, and that is that the laws are now geared
to, in effect — and I think unintentionally — ^discriminate in the enforce-
ment of the law. Because if you look at history, it is replete with dis-
cussions about the poor, low-income people, who are involved in the
commission of the types of crimes that we are talking about here:
the Irish when they started, the Jews, Italians, blacks, Puerto Ricans ;
you name it, as they came up the economic scale.
What is happening is that these individuals against whom the thrust
of our law enforcement is directed are beginning to recognize they are
not the only ones committing crimes. They are just committing a differ-
ent type of crime. "Wlien I say "they," I don't mean the entire commu-
nity. I am talking about those individuals in that community that
commit crime. And there is a large area, as I suggested to you, that
is not being policed, and those are the three areas I mentioned — public
corruption, organized crime, and white-collar crime.
The people who are involved in these areas and who commit these
crimes are very rarely blacks, low-income, or from minority groups.
Generally, it is the establishment or white people who control the laws
or the enactment of laws which would be able to ferret out or zero-in
on this type of crime.
What I am saying to you is that it becomes more difficult every day
for us in law enforcement to effectively prosecute street crime because
of the diminishing credibility that we have in the community, partic-
ularly in relation to these individuals in these groups, low-income,
minority groups, because they are our witnesses. They are our jurors
in street crimes as well as other types of crimes. And unless we have
credibility, unless we can convince them we are just as concerned about
the white, high-income, affluent people committing crimes, they will
have no faith, no confidence in the system, and fewer will want to be-
come witnesses — because we are having trouble today bringing them
in — fewer will want to sit as jurors, or when they sit on juries they
will reflect their attitudes in the disposition of tlie cases.
Now, there are books, I am sure, that have been written and will be
written on this subject. I know I am just touching very lightly in the
area, but as it relates to the area of street crime. I know I am talking
about crimes that may not be classified as street crimes, but will, ff
95-158 — 73 — pt. 3 7
1056
looked at as I suggest, have an impact on street crime in the way that
we enforce the hiws and how effective we are.
The issue of finality in judgment is a veiy difficult area for us to
consider but it is killing us in law enforcement. Cases are being-
appealed and they go on and on and on, and people are out on the
streets committing other crimes and, as they commit other crimes,
they are arrested and begin the process all over again. Where they
go through the State system and all of a sudden we find them in the
Federal system — more years waiting.
And the prosecutors, they are human beings, they lose interest,
because we have a more important case that has come up and we
are utilizing our resources in that area and giving less attention to
this case that is now 2 to .3 years old.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. About a month
ago a young man in our jurisdiction during the commission of a r(jb-
bery killed a young girl. Two men held up a store, a music store in
Flint. They walked in, and one went to the back of the store. A .young
giri was in the back at the safe, either kneeling down, or he had her
kneel down. Without any rhyme or reason he shot and killed her.
In our opinion and the police opinion, he was involved in drugs
at the time and was high on drugs. That is another problem I will
talk to you about in just a moment. As it turned out, this individual
had about a year prior to that time been arrested for armed robbery,
had gone to court, had pleaded guilty, and had been advised by the
trial court that he had a right to a jury trial.
He was sentenced to, as I recall, 7 to 20 years for the armed robbery.
He appealed after going to prison, on the grounds that he was not
advised of all of his rights when he pleaded guilty. The appellate
court reversed, saying he was correct. He not only should have been
formally advised that he had a right to trial, but that he had a right
to cross-examine witnesses and he had a right to refrain from taking
the stand if he were tried.
In my wildest dreams, I can't imagine that individual, that defend-
and, ever deciding not to plead guilty if these other two items had teen
told him. He would have still pled guilty.
Now, because of this technicality, he was released from prison and
this young girl is dead today.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me. Would it be considered double jeop-
ardy to try him again ?
Mr. Leonard. Xo. He pled guilty. He wasn't jury convicted. He
went and said, "I am guilty of the armed robbery!'' That is what
makes it so flagrant. If he had been convicted by a jury, you might
say there was error. But this fellow said, "I am guilty of 'if and he
should have been in jail. He was sentenced to T, 15, 20 years. He
would have been in jail if the court had not reversed on that
technicality.
I am a lawyer; I recognize the importance of technicalities in some
situations, and I recognize the importance of a man's right to appeal
and to have a higher court make a determination of the guilt or in-
nocence of somebody, or the issue of his constitutional rights. But I am
inclined to think it is going to just stifle the entire system unless we
somehow develop rules and procedures where b}^ — and maybe the case
must be this, a man has one appeal, and it goes'to one couit and some-
1057
how set up a system so tliat the appelhite coui-t hears that matter with-
in 2 or 8 months — and tliere is no reason why it can't — and have that
matter disposed of then and thei-e, and that is it.
\o iroinic thiousrh the Federal system, or no <roin<>:throufrh the Mari-
tune system, or whatever the system is. I am just surprised that some
of tliem haven't figured out the Maritime system because they may
have a way of goino; through that system, too.
But tlie point simply is we liave to have the finality in tlie system
in getting thcjse people committing violent crime that cannot be treated
by community forces off the street and serving their sentences. Not
only is it going to have an impact on that individual but those indi-
viduals out in the street, considering what to do, whether they should
commit othei- crimes.
Finally, the issue of the prohibitive delay in the time period be-
tween arrest and trial. You know^, we have heard many suggestions,
such as more judges, more prosecutors, and more police. If anybody
would sit down and project what we are talking about, more judges,
police, and prosecutors, I think they would rethink it, because w^e are
talking about an increase in the expenditures in the criminal justice
system of probably three or four times.
That means when you go back to the public : "I am going to increase
your taxes x number of millions on your property or income tax, or
what-have-you.*'
When you start talking dollars and cents to people, to the public, to
the constituents, they are going to respond a little bit differently. They
are going to ask what are the alternatives? I suggest to you there are
all kinds of alternatives that the criminal justice system has never
used, primarily because its members, had their own little ball game.
They operate in a vacuum and they think they know everything about
the criminal justice system ,wliere police, prosecutors, and judges say,
''You stay back where you are and take care of your own discipline
over here and your own sciences over there, and we know how better
to take care of the system,'' and we Avon't let you in.
I say that is one of the reasons we are in trouble today. There are
all kinds of agencies, institutions, public and private, sciences, that are
available to us that could help us, particularly in communities, be-
cause I think that is where the help has to come from.
When a man goes to prison, or a woman goes to prison, 90 percent
of them come back to the community that sentenced them, at least in
our area. That is our problem. That individual is a creature or a
product of our society, not of his home alone, but of our society, which
is the schools, the neighborhoods, the churches, all of the discrimina-
tory acts we may have committed against the individual for whatever
reason. He is our responsibility.
We have got resources in our community that we should be using.
All kinds of resources that we should attempt to use to help rehabili-
tate those people in our community, rather than sending them 400
and 500 miles away, where they have impossible problems in those
prisons today trying to solve tlie problems. It is our problem, our
community.
Xow, I am not suggesting to you that prisons aren't needed, but I
think we overuse prisons. I think that there are certain individuals
that should be imprisoned and if w-e send them to prison it is clear
1058
they are going to do nothing but create problems when they come out.
I suggest to you whatever they are charged with, turn the key and
throw it away and leave them there. There are people like that in our
community and we have to do it.
But I suggest to you also that there are people in the prisons today
who shouldn't be there, whom we could better handle in our own
community. As a reflection of that kind of an attitude, we developed
8 years ago what we called the "citizen probation authority program",
which is a diversion program. I agree with the judge, it is absolutely
essential if you have a diversion program that you have followup and
you liave people working with these individuals.
Ours is a felony program. We take people, primarily young people,
who have committed nonviolent acts — burglary, car theft, larceny —
who have no previous record, who we know that 9 chances out of 10,
maybe even better than that, we show it about 91/2 out of 10, will prob-
ably never commit another crime. But we are trying to protect them
from criminal records, because I think we all know the inhibiting
impact of the criminal record.
I know^ Congressman Mann was a former prosecutor and he under-
stands that tremendous impact that it has, as we all can.
But that is one aspect of it. We also recognize how much more
effective diversion is than probation, 6, 8, 10 months later. We take
him in our program if the individual fits the qualifications and the
criteria, which is very definitely spelled out, so there is no unfair-
ness in the treatment of any individual.
The day after he is arrested, if he falls into this classification, he
is diverted. He goes to a professional staff of people who deal with
these people, formei" probation officers, who now in fact are the front
of the system, and they begin working with him and do the research
on him and the backgromid check and make the determination whether
or not he should be accepted for the program. But he starts on the
program in anticipation that he Avill be accepted.
We accept about 60 percent; 40 percent are rejected and sent back
for prosecution because they don't fit the criteria, maybe on account of
previous offenses or because they want no part of the program.
The practice there is from 6 months to 1 year that individual works
with his assigned officer and he develops programs. Those programs
are directly involved with our community. We find, for example, that
many of these people have alcoholic problems. We have alcoholic
clinics in our community that we utilize. If he has a drug problem, he
goes to the drug clinic. If he has a particular problem with reading or
writing, we teach him reading and writing. If he has a problem with a
skill, or he has no skill, we work with him in that relation. We train
him.
Now, the recidivism rate, the rate of repeating, of committing more
crimes, is about 3 percent.
Chairman Pepper. In that classification ?
Mr. Leonard. In that classification. I might say to you I have these
statistics. We have done a study on it. The LEA A arm in Michigan,
which is the State planning agency, has done a year-long study and
comes to these conclusions. I have it available.
The National District Attorneys Association has adopted it as its
model program for diversion.
1059
Chairman Pepper. We would like very much to have it.
Mr. Leonard. I have one here. I have also the St. Paul-Minneapolis
program, which is called the "de novo program," and the Hawaii
program.
Chairman Pepper. Would you leave it with us ? If they are not bulky,
we would like to put them in the record.
Mv. Leonard. They are lengthy. Ours is about a 200-page report.
Chairman Pepper. We will put it among the documents of the
record.
jNIr. Leonard. Fine.
[The documents referred to above will be found in the files of the
committee.]
Mr. Leonard. We have, as I say, a very low recidivism rate.
Frankl}', we take the "cream of the crop" aAvay from the criminal jus-
tice system, rjid we utilize all of these community resources that are
available. What I am savin."; to you is that all of these resources were
not available originally. We created some of them. I think prosecu-
tors, and as Judge liichette has said, judges and police, should be in the
system, should be out in the community, creating the resources they
need to help the criminal justice system.
It opens up the criminal justice system to those individuals commit-
ting those kinds of crimes you are interested in, and I am interested in,
in this committee hearing. Violent crime, street crime. The people
committing the armed robberies, the assaults, the rapes, the murders.
I think the proof is in the pudding.
Our time delay between arrest and trial is about 314 to 4 months on
the average case. It is the most current docket in the State of Michigan.
In all fairness, much of the credit has to go to our judges. We do have
six hard-working judges. Certainly, they recognize and they support
the diversion program I am talking to you about, because they know
they can better do their job and they don't have the long delaj-s or
large backlog of cases.
Chairman Pepper. Does that program appl}' only to adults or adults
and juveniles?
Mr. Leonard. My jurisdiction is primarily adults, from IT on. The
great majority of these types of offenses, as you know, are committed
by young people. Then when you talk about young people in the cate-
gory that I look upon, about 17 and above, generally about 75, SO
percent of our cases are 24 years and under.
I have jurisdiction in probate court, but only as an advocate. I don't
charge, I don't make the charges. That is done by the court itself.
So they have a similar type program they are woi'king on in Flint now
called the "Youth Assistance Program." That is fashioned after ours
and has been quite a success also.
I have a second diversion program that is about a year and a half
old. I can't tell you how successful that is going to be because it is
going to take some years, like this one has, to prove it suiRciently, and
that is a drug narcotic program. I happen to be of the belief, after
16 years in the prosecutor's office, that prosecuting drug addicts and
hopheads, who have some psychological hangups, is not really the
answer. I know nothing about the treatment of drug addicts. I know
the judges don't, and the correctional system has also proven the same
pretty well.
1060
So, what we do in our county, in these cases where an individual is
arrested for possession of heroin, or possession of pills or dru^s of any
kind, is we divert. Again, to outside agencies that we have created or
assisted in creating.
We have a drug commission which is the umbrella agency for fund-
ing all of these other agencies, and also the clearinghouse for our
diverted individuals. These individuals are diverted into the drug
connnission, which has the experts, the people who deal in human
behavior, who understand the drug proljlem, what motivates these
individuals, what kind of drug problem they have, whether it is
serious addiction, whether it is heroin, what-have-you, and they them-
selves then direct that individual to a particular agency or modality,
keeping in mind all of the time that these programs — they are diver-
sion programs of '"Deferred Prosecution." And the deferred prosecu-
tion is what we call the "hammer."
The individual must abide by the rules or he or she will be prose-
cuted. "When the person goes to the modality, we have a contract, a
written contract with the modality, that requires it to give us
monthly reports on the progress of that individual. One of my assist-
ants is assigned for the purpose of reviewing those reports to make
sure everything is going all right.
We have a resident modality which has been organized and is run
by the Odyssey House out of Is'ew York, which does a very good job.
Dr. Denison Gerber is in charge of that, a tremendous individual.
We have an outpatient center called SODAT. similar to the one
in Pennsylvania. We have three units now operating in our area.
We have a methadone maintenance modality and then we have one
we have organized, which we are really quite excited about, and that
is our crisis centers in the high schools and communities throughout the
area.
We have about 500,000 people in our jurisdiction and what we
have done is establish these crisis centers to handle the less complicated
drug cases with young people themselves. In other words, we have
trained 20 to 2r> young ])eople in the area of empathy training, and
what have you. They receive about 60 hours' training from professional
psychiatrists, psychologists, others, sociologists, and they are then put
into these drop-in centers.
In those areas where young people are arrested for pills or mari-
huana violation, we defer the probation and send them to the drop-in
centers in these high schools. We have 27 higli schools, about 1?>
crisis centers now in the high schools, and 4 or 5 in the analogous
community.
What is exciting about it is — and we are satisfied tliat if you are
really going to have impact with young people, you have to do it
with their peers — the kids themselves work with these individuals
to try to correct whatever problem may have caused them to get
involved in drugs. Keep in mind, some of these young people have
no problem at all. They just happened to be arrested when they had
some marihuana in their possession. The reason they have been charged
with a ci'ime is because of the possession, not because tliey have the
particular problem, but because they were doing something that
ma}^ have been illegal, because of peer pressure.
1081
I am not ])layino: that clown, but it happens to be a fact. "When these
Youn<;: people work with these persons, and we liavc contracts with
these drop-in centers, they then make recommendations back to ns.
"\Mien tlieir monthly report comes in, they indicate the progress of the
individual and the recommendation as to whether or not the person
needs more treatment or they arc satisfied he has successfully com-
pleted the program.
What is exciting is we have young people themselves participating
in the system in a meaningful way — not just window dressing. They
are actually making recommendations and have impact on other young
people's lives.
We think it has been successful. It has been taken up by many other
schools in our area and it has now been introduced in the master plan.
I understand it is for the State board of education to be encouraged
and other jurisdictions around the State. The point simply is that we,
I think, recognize wo don't know the answers to the drug problem, we
in the criminal justice system, and there are many people that we can
utilize who can assist us, who want to assist us.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me, Mr. Leonard. This committee held
hearings in six major cities — New York, Miami, Chicago, San Fran-
cisco, Kansas City, Kans., and Los Angeles — on the subject of drugs
in the schools, and we have felt all along that much could be done in
the schools to deal with this problem. We are delighted to hear your
personal experience in what you have been able to accomplish in that
area.
Mr. Leoxard. Thank you, Mr. Pepper. I really believe the avail-
ability of young people, the desire on their- part to become involved
and to do this is a tremendous resource that we have never used.
I am confident in a couple of years I can return and talk to you again
and tell you how successful it has been. I am hoping it will be. I don't
know, I can't tell you it will be. All I know is there are many young
people who have been sent to these schools, who have now gone into
the centers themselves and are counselors, they are so excited about
the program.
We have some statistical information in the report here, in my pre-
pared comments. But, I think that at the same time we feel very
strongly about those people who are pushing drugs and we prosecute
those individuals without any thought of giving any kind of consid-
eration to plea bargaining there. We feel very strongly those individ-
uals have to be prosecuted, those who are profiting for that purpose.
You have to distinguish between those individuals and the junkie out
in the street selling because he has a habit. I am more inclined to think
we could do something for him instead of sending him off to prison if
his problem is an addiction as such.
But the dealers who are dealing for profit, who do it knowingly,
know what it is all about, deserve to be prosecuted and to be prosecuted
to the full extent of the law.
Let me conclude by saying I feel that we have many resources in
all of the communities throughout this country that are not being used
by the criminal justice system. Until we begin using them, either the
system is going to fail or we are going to have to build so many court-
houses and add so many prosecutor's, police, and judges, that the cost
will be prohibitive. We just can't do it.
1062
There are all kinds of people in our communities throiigliout this
country that want to help if we just let them come in and practice what
they know and assist us and make this a better community to live in.
I would be hapj)y to answer any questions you might have.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Mann ?
Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Leonard, I saw from some preliminary notes that you were a
critic of the part-time prosecuting system. In South Carolina, we still
have part-time prosecution across the board. State prosecutors as well
as lower jurisdictions. And the problem that you mention about having
triple property taxes to achieve an adequate system, I think probably
holds true there. It is a State system and the prosecutors there could
be converted to full-time prosecutor without any impact on the local
property taxes.
It certainly should be done. It is a disgustingly inadequate system.
When you compound the inadequacy of the law enforcement agen-
cies themselves, and inadequate prosecutor's office, no presentence
investigation for the benefit of the judges, then you really have a tough
situation. It wouldn't take any more people, really. Just a few little
changes in the system. We are making progress on the training of law
enforcement officers now, but the prosecuting offices are not geared up
to it.
No diversion systems. In my experience, I certainly saw the need for
them. It used to disturb me very greatly to have these teenagers up for
grand larceny when it was using some automobile without the owner's
consent, and the first thing they know, they have a record that follows
them for the rest of their lives and disqualifies them as citizens, and
so on.
I recently — well, not recently, about 2 or 3 years ago — jawboned
the LEAA because they weren't putting out the word on successful
programs. They have now started doing better. But I am disturbed
about the lack of some central — I notice you are an officer in the prose-
cutor's association ?
Mr. Leonard. National District Attorneys, yes.
Mr. Mann. I commented earlier about the failure of the judges to
properly organize and give the public information. I don't know what
the coordinating agency might be to get the message out. This com-
mittee has clone a great job in that connection, your prosecutors asso-
ciation, national judges groups, and others. But as you indicate, there
are resources available and techniques available, but the word is just
not getting out.
I hope the result will be to put out a lot of innovative systems. I
know there are seminars and national training meetings from time to
time. Are you getting support from the local jurisdictions to pay the
expenses for the prosecutor's attendance there ?
Mr. Leonard. Many jurisdictions, Congressman Mann, do provide
funds, but there are many that do not. The district attorneys have a
hard time convincing their local boards of supervisors or commissions
that they should be going to these conferences, which are absolutely
essential to a continuing educational program of a prosecutor. As a
result, the District Attorneys Association, as well as the National Col-
lege of District Attorneys — I don't know whether you are aware we
have a national college at the University of Houston Law School that
1063
trains district attorneys all year 'round — have been going out to local
jurisdictions, like, say, Atlanta, Ga., and trying to get the States in
from there.
Up in Philadelphia. Chicago, they have been moving the confer-
ences around to try and bring the information to the district attoi'neys,
as well as providing State programs for various State organizations
that want one.
One of tlie big advancements, I think, that district attorneys have
made now, which has come from LEAA, much of it, is what we call
State directors, or coordinators, a hired prosecutor or foiTner prose-
cutor who works full time for the State organization and works as a
lobbyist in regard to legislation, keeps them inforaned of what is going
on, sets up training seminars, and things like that. So we are making
progress.
I am ver\^ pleased to hear your concern about it because that is ex-
actly the problem, making the local legislative bodies understand that
these people should be receiving training.
Mr. ]\L\NN. Which brings up another problem. It seems the attorneys
general across tliis country' seem to be involved in civil matters rather
than assisting the criminal courts, although they have authority over
solicitors and act as prosecutors and can assign them around, when a
problem occurs with reference to a special prosecution. But the at-
torneys general aren't doing much in the area of training prosecutors.
That is an area that perhaps should be explored.
Thank you very much.
Chaimian Pepper. Mr. ]S<"olde.
]Mr. NoLDE. IVIr. Leonard, your citizens probation program has
achieved a remarkable success. As I understand, only 3 percent re-
cidivism. Would you tell the committee the fantastically low cost in-
volved in that program ?
Mr. Leoxard. I think what is really important about this is that
the cost per person on the program per year is $65 a year. That is the
cost. We have over 1,000 individuals on the program right now, and
it continues to go up. The cost per probationer in our county is about
$360 per year.
Now, there is one aspect of it that we have introduced because of
financial problems and things like that, and our desire to continue the
program, and that is we require every probationer who can afford it to
pay $100 for the program. In other words, for the ser^^ces the program
provides. We don't think that is an unusual expenditure or demand.
If a person is indigent and can't pay, he is allowed on the program
without paying. About 70 percent of them pay the $100.
It is not a blackmail thing in any way. If they can't afford it, they
don't pay it. But it keeps the program going, reduces the cost to our
county, which funds most of the bill for this thing, because they recog-
nize the tremendous saving in taxpayers' money in not having these
people go through the criminal justice system, judges' time, prosecu-
tors' time, police time, probation time.
We have diverted them out.
Mr. NoLDE. But this only costs the county prosecutor $65 per per-
son per year ?
Mr. Leonard. The county. "V^Hiat I have done, so there isn't any ques-
tion of political hanky-panky or unevenness in treatment, I have
1064
divorced the citizens probation authority from my office. So it is an in-
dependent agency, althoufrh as a prosecutor they are helping me ex-
ercise my discretion and I have to make the decision whether I am
going to prosecute or not. But their recommendations are given great
weight and I don't know in the 8 years it has been operating, that we
have ever rejected their recommendation.
Mr. Mann". What is the nature of that decisionmaking bodv of
theirs ?
Mr. Leonard. You mean the citizen's probation authority ?
Mr. Mann. Yes.
Mr, Leonard. It originally got its name because it was citizens who
did it. We started out with lawyers in the office who advised the com-
mittee and we used again community resources, psychologists, psy-
chiatrists, ministers, priests, social workers, teachers, people who deal
in human behavior, who sat in teams and would take these individ-
uals that worked witli them. It got so big it couldn't be followed up like
it was suggested by Judge Richette in the Pliiladelphia situation.
We established a professional staff and that staff is made up primar-
ily of people who were former probation officers who came to us and
began working with us. They know how to deal with the people. They
examined them and set up programs for them. They find out what their
problems are. whether they need therapy, whether they need training
for a skill, whether they need training in reading, or whatever it is,
and they begin to work on it.
We have a program, any young person who goes into the program,
who can be admitted into college, we will see to it, if they can't afford
it, they will receive a scholarship.
Mr. Mann. Is there a citizens advisory board ?
Mr. Leonard. Yes, the citizens advisory board meets about once
every 6 months, twice a year, to discuss policy matters with us. That
is a very important aspect of the program, to keep the citizens of the
community involved in it and make sure you have public support for
it. And in all of the 8 years we have been operating, we have processed
now around 3,800 young people through the program, people who
could have been charged with felonies, who are now out on the street
without criminal records, not committing any more crime, either in
college, business, or what have you. We have never received any criti-
cism. I don't think it hurts anything to have publishers and managers
of television stations on the committee.
But I think, if the program were bad, these fellows would have said
so. They were very helpful in developing the program, keeping it on
the straight and narrow, and have been a tremendous asset to our
program.
Chairman Pepper. "Wliere do you get the money, Mr. Leonard, to
teach anyone a skill ?
Mr. Leonard. We are very fortunate that in our community our
high school has a big skill center that has night classes and the Mott
Foundation in our community is one of the originators in keeping the
high schools open at night. We have all kinds of programs going on
in every single high school in our community at night. We can plug
them into all kinds of different programs.
1065
"VVe give tlioin toRtiiig to find out where their interests are, where
their skills are, and we phio- them into those various programs
throughout the community.
It is a very simple project. It just takes someone to put them to-
gether. Once it is put together, it is not that much more expensive.
We have all of those resources available.
Chairman Pepper. How much of an administrative staff do you have
to supervise the operation ?
Mr. Leonard. The citizens pi-obation authority now has 10 people.
So they are supervising approximately 100 people each month. Keep
in mind, they are supervising people who are not likely to commit
other crimes, Avho have a real interest to stay in the program, because
if they don't, they will be prosecuted.
Chairman Pepper. Suppose a young j^erson, 18 years old, is arrested,
from then on what happens ?
Mr. Leonard. The police officers, as you know, usually the police
agencies, might be reluctant to participate in a program, but they have
no choice. In our State, the prosecutor requires all of the warrants
and they must come through up. But now they ai'e very cooperative
with the program. They come in, if they know this person fits a certain
classification he possibly will go to the program.
They make out a form which tells all of the information and they
have a recommendation. We allow them to make recommendations.
We don't always follow it if we don't think it is a legitimate recom-
mendation. For example, if they caught a young kid burglarizing
something and they are satisfied this is a kid they were trying to get
for a long time, he and 50 others, they make note of it, and the citizens
probation authority, which is the independent agency with the 10
workers, will then be assigned.
He will be told to report to their office on the next day and he will
come through tlie office. He first comes into our office where he is
screened and interviewed and then he is told to do certain things in
the process of the investigation. It takes between 10 days and 2 weeks
to finish.
Then the recommendation and the process of investigation is done
by one of the probation people in our citizens probation authority
program. The recommendation comes back to us whether he is accepted
or rejected. If he is accepted, they immediately begin whatever workup
on the program they feel they need.
If he has a reading problem, any kind of problem, if he has been
to college and is dropping out and needs some help there, we get him
this. If he needs job skills and wants to go into auto repairs, we begin
working vvith him in that area. After 6 months or up to a year, they
will work with him. If they feel during that time period he has
sufficiently completed the program, they set up for him, they recom-
mend the prosecution be dropped.
If he were fingerprinted, mugged, they will all be returned by the
police agencv bureau order. We try to avoid him even being processed
in that way if we can, because we know^ if a person is mugged and
fingerprinted and it comes to Washington, we don't know if we can
ever get it back. We have no control over that. As a result, Ave try to
stop it and the police agencies liave l^een very coopei'ative now and
very helpful.
1066
But there are reports constantly coming to us on whether or not
the person is sufficiently fulfilling his program. He must report. If
he has problems, they work with him.
Chairman Pepper. If there are problems in the family
]Mr. Leo^'ard. Yes, sir. That is very important in our program.
Absolutely essential when we started out was the fact that the family
be brought in immediately and even if his family were a broken family,
the mother and the father are brought in and they sit down with the
young boy or girl and we begin working on the problem with them.
We used to have a great deal more power in Michigan in that respect
until they dropped the age of majority down to 18, and we don't have
the control. But we still get a lot of cooperation from families where
we think it is iiecessary. It is very much a part of the program.
Mr. NoLDE. Mr. Leonard, I would like to ask you about the use of
the grand jury. As I understand it, in Michigan, you do not use the
grand jury to routinely initiate cliarges, relying instead upon the
issuance of a criminal complaint.
What is your opinion about the use of grand juries ?
Mr. Leonard. Well, I think the grand jury is a necessary evil.
INIr. Noi.DE. It is an evil ?
Mr. Leonard. I think it is an evil. It is a necessary evil because prose-
cutors have no way of investigating that area of crime I am suggesting
to you is going uninvestigated. That is, public corruption, white-collar
crime, and other organized crime.
The prosecutor has to have some subpena power to force these people
in because we are invariably talking about books and records in many
of these cases and we can't get at books and records until we start the
case. Unless we have the books and records, we can't start the case,
so it is kind of a vicious circle.
Mr. Nolde. But for other types of crimes, isn't it a tremendous waste
of time in the routine criminal case?
Mr. Leoxard. Yes, because generally you are talking about an in-
dividual who is caught in the act, or he is identified in the lineup, so
we never use the grand jury in that type of crime. Based on identifi-
cation and lineup, fingerprints and what have you, we issue the com-
plaint and the warrant goes out and the process comes through. The
grand jury
Mr. Nolde. It is, in effect, a rubber stamp ?
Mr. Leonard. Right. We use the grand jury only in the cases I
described to you, pretty much. Very rarely we might subpena a wit-
ness in who refuses to come in, refuses to say anything in a violent
crime case. We may have to call him in. But that has been done out
of all the cases we have had in the last 2 or 3 years in Michigan — it is
rather recent in Michigan — then only two or three cases. Right now,
we use the grand jury primarily for investigative purposes, just to
investigate crime.
Then we go to the complaint and warrant rather than indictment.
I have always said, and we have tried to convince our legislature that
it is an awful waste of money to have 17 people, why not give the
subpena powei- to the prosecutor and let him do the same thing any-
way, and the defense attorney can come in to the prosecutor's office and
sit down. I am of the belief that grand jury laws should permit the
defense attorneys to sit in with their clients when they are testify-
ing before the grand jury.
1067
It is really a game we are playino:. Technically, tlioy could sit out
by the grand jury room and the Avitncsscs don't have to answer ques-
tions until they liave the right to consult w ith their attorneys. So why
waste time? Have them sit there and you eliminate a lot of the criti-
cism that they can't have their attorneys or consult with their
attorneys.
T think if prosecutors had subpena power, where they could sub-
pena records and books and things in their investigation, they would
l3e much better off. Subpena power with the approval of the judge. In
other words, if you are going to investigate a case, you have to peti-
tion, like for a search warrant, an affidavit, what have you, asking
the judge to give you permission to subpena. And you have that pro-
tection in that way.
But until we have tliat. we have no choice, we have to use the grand
jur^ in those areas other than street crime I talked about.
]Mr. Nor.DE. Before I close. Mr. Chairman, I would like the record to
reflect some of the outstanding acliievements Mr. Leonard has accom-
plished over the years. He was twice chosen as outstanding prosecutor
in the State of jSIichigan, and recently chosen by a national magazine
as one of the 10 most admired men in the country for, in part, hav-
ing donated his salary increase to the coimty drug program.
In addition to that, he recently returned from Russia on a fact-
finding tour in which he investigated charges of persecution of Soviet
Jews, having to enter the country posing as a tourist because they
would not permit any official outside investigation.
So he has achieved many things in addition to the outstanding work
we have heard he has done in the prosecutor's office in Flint, Midi.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Leonard, you are obviously one of the inno-
vative leaders in the whole criminal justice sj^stem. We are so pleased
you could cooperate with us in these hearings. "VVliat we are trj^ing to
do, as you know, is put into the record and make available to prose-
cutors and other law enforcement people all over the country the most
innovative programs that will be examples and, we hope, an inspira-
tion for many in helping combat street crime.
Before we conclude- — you are so loiowledgeable in and have such a
feel for this whole program — what would you say we should do about
our correctional system and what can we do?
]Mr. Leonard. I am of the belief the correctional system, the cen-
tralization of the correctional system, is a real serious error. For ex-
ample, in Michigan, we have what we call 19 major metropolitan areas,
Avhich are fairly large cities. I believe we ought to have more minimum
security institutions whereby, again, if we have the minimum security
institutions in our major cities, we can begin utilizing those commu-
nity resources that are there and ready, willing, and able to help us.
We are attempting to do that now in Micliigan. We have, I think,
a very progressive sheriff, just recently elected, a young fellow who
is finishing law school in the next year or so, and he is willing and de-
sirous of doing these things.
So we are very hopeful we will be able to do that in ]\Iichigan.
But I think it is going to need some help from Congress at least
in direction and encouragement. Probably some of them will be coming
in asking for some financial support. But I thmk you are giving it in
LEAA. I think the money is there. I think all we have to do is set
some priorities.
1058
I think if we could establish tlie minimum security prison, where we
had open visitation rights, where we try to keep families together
instead of destroying them when a person goes off to prison, where we
even have conjugal visiting rights as far as I am concerned, where
wives and children can go and be with their husbands and their
fathers on weekends, or whatever it may be, to try and keep that
family together, and also work-release programs and things like that,
which we can do in these various communities.
I just think we liave to decentralize our prison system.
Chairman Pepper. I am very pleased to hear you say that. I think
it is one of the critical weaknesses of our criminal justice system today.
I don't know to what extent the LEA A is now financing the experiment
establishing that kind of institution. I know the Federal Prison System
has stopped building big, centralized institutions and are trying to get
them on a smaller scale and embody more of those principles.
But even more than that, I would like to see the Federal Government
put up 50 percent of the money with the States in establishing institu-
tions, such as you were describing, in the urban areas where, generally
speaking, the inmate in the institution would be close to his family,
close to his own environment.
Mr. Leonard. Absolutely.
Chairman Pepper. And helping the State gat started with those
systems and then, I am told, probably once they got them established
and in operation the States could pay for the operation of them, be-
cause it would not be a continuing Federal responsibility.
But I feel if the Federal Government wants to do something, and
certainly it does, I believe we could reduce crime a great deal if we
could establish that new kind of correctional institution and operate
it from a ne'w point of view, with a new purpose ; primarily to protect
the people against the repetition of the kind of crimes the inmates in
there have committed.
What hope is there for an institution like Attica or Raiford in
Florida, where they are overcrowded, they don't have any adequate
programs of any sort, built out in rural areas where there are no job
opportunities, no visitation opportunities available, and the like.
Mr. Leonard, we are most grateful to you. We just hope you will
continue your great work in whatever office will allow you to do the
most good in this area.
Mr. Leonard. Thank you for having me, Mr. Pepper, Mr. Mann.
[Mr. Leonard's prepared statement follows :J
Prepared Statement of Robert Leonard, Prosecuting Attorney, Genesee
County, Flint, Mich.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in the present decade, the tra-
ditional American System of Criminal Justice has come under close scrutiny and
has received much deserved criticism. Legal scholars, legislators, judges, and
prosecutors are all too well aware of the patent, major defects and deficiencies
which exist in the present operation of the Criminal Justice System in the
United States. The proliferation of crime in the streets in our country is cer-
tainly related to the basic inadequacy in our Criminal Justice System in failing
to curb the frightening upward trend.
Some of the more obvious and significant problems and defects we have ob-
served are :
, 1. The "assembly line" processing of accused persons in our criminal courts,
in the vain attempt to ameliorate their hopelessly clogged criminal dockets,
through such measures as forced plea bargaining.
1069
2. Tlie commingling in our jails and prisons of truly hardened and incorrigible
violent criminal sociopaths with non-violent and misguided offenders the latter
who, hut for their often inexorable entry into prison, might have been able to
avoid stepping onto the "•treadmill" of criminal recidivism.
3. The lengthy delays at every stage between the time when an offender first
commits a criminal act and the ultimate time when his price to society therefor is
linalizod, which delays insure that the otXender will learn no beneficial or re-
habilitative lesson at all from his ultimate punishment because he has long since
forgotten or rationalized away the sigTiificance of his prior conduct.
4. The indelible and permanent labelling of many such non-serious and non-
violent "'law-breakers" as ""criminals" and '"ex-cons" who will retain such a
stereotyped desi,^'nation for the rest of their lives, along with the concomitant
social stigma, ostracism, disgrace and loss of status as full-fiedged citizens.
5. The exorbitant expense and cost of funding programs of post-conviction pro-
bation and parole which fail to adequately supervise or rehabilitate the proba-
tioners or parolees.
6. The loss of credibility in our very Criminal Justice System itself which the
public has manifested and which has resulted to a great extent from the fact that
our justice system has traditionally focused its resources on the poor and minor-
ity groups while at the same time failing to deal with the crimes of the more
affluent or the "Establishment" which often have a lesser degree of visibility
but to which we must and should devote more attention in the future.
There has indeed been much proper and warranted criticism of all of the
above-described ills present in our standard and traditional system of criminal
justice — a system which has been crying out for reexamination and change, for
innovative, positive and thoughtful approaches and solutions to all of the above
serious concerns.
It cannot be gainsaid that we do need more judges, courtrooms, police and
prosecutors to operate our system as it exists, but not only must we be con-
cerned with the prohibitive costs of such additions, we should also recognize
that such additions alone, even if they were financially feasible, would not solve
the present inadequacies we have seen.
What is necessary beyond the bare multiplication of the participants in the
fjystem is a basic revision in thought and in philosophy on the part of police,
prosecutors and our criminal courts. What we need to stem the proliferation of
crime is a proliferation of the viable alternatives available to our presently be-
leaguered Criminal Justice System. We must recognize that our treatment of
offenders should be made more flexible and more variable, and that per se uni-
formity and rigidity in treatment has not proven to be an effective answer to the
crisis in crime. The police, prosecutors and courts — the introductory channels of
the system — can no longer afford to operate in an isolated vacuum. The success-
ful diversion of selected offenders from the system is predicated on the need
to remove this vacuum and to integrate the operation of the police, prosecutors
and courts with the community at large — with the co-participation of all of the
communitywide agencies which can and should effectively work together with the
basic criminal agencies in the mutual effort to stem the ever-increasing rise of
crime. Such an alternative and option is the concept of diversion, that is, diver-
sion of selected offenders from the system by the prosecutor, the pivotal chief
law enforcement agent, who is responsible under our law for making the funda-
mental decision whether to prosecute or not to prosecute any offender under
the traditional warrant process.
The supporting basic need for the concept of diversion is that we must manifest
more concern for finding the most appropriate ways of dealing individually with
individuals, or recognizing each offender as being a peculiar human being with a
corresponding unique background and complex of personality traits.
We must remember that each and every offender is a member of a community
and whether he goes to prison or not, he will one day return to that community.
It therefore seems both logical and necessary to bring these offenders into early
and initial contact with any and all community-based agencies which are
currently in a position to isolate, define and evaluate the various needs and de-
ficiencies of the individual, which are treatable and curable by them and not by
the police, prosecutors and courts per se.
The breakdown in our Criminal Justice System which we have seen is perhaps
most directly a result of the overburdening of it; that is, the input into the
system is so high that the ideal operation of it cannot possibly be achieved. The
use of diversionary programs would certainly help to reduce this excessive in-
1070
put by selectively diverting certain nonviolent and nonserious offenders to volun-
tary programs of preprosecution probation before any formal criminal warrant
is issued, or any formal criminal charges are lodged against them.
Many of these accused persons, who would otherwise fall into the "assembly
line" system in the courts, are effectively kept out ; this way the more serious
and often much-neglected crimes can be more effectively dealt with, such as
crimes of violence, organized crime, public corruption, and crimes against the
consumer.
Second, by diverting such selected offenders at this initial stage under the
discretionary power of the prosecutor, they are effectively kept out of the
prison environment and thus removed from the influence and example of those
incorrigibly hardened violent and sociopathic criminals.
Third, there is a distinct advantage to being able to deal with the offender
at the moment when the magnitude of his offense as an anti-social act is still
uppermost in his mind and before he's had an opportunity to spend months
making excuses for himself or learning from jailhouse lawyers how to beat the
rap or not get caught the next time.
Fourth, by so diverting offenders, they would avoid the indelible stigma of
"criminal" or "ex-con" which would not only operate to penalize them in many
collateral social contexts throughout their future lives, but which, moreover,
would stand in their minds as a self-fulfilling and internalized perception, which
might further encourage them to act out their social roles as "criminals" and
effectively discourage them from rehabilitating themselves in the future.
Fifth, by so diverting such offenders from programs of post-conviction proba-
tion or parole into such diversionary programs of preprosecution probation, the
presently overburdened caseloads and costly expense of often ineffective post-
conviction probation and parole can be significantly reduced while at the same
time society loses nothing in the way of protection by the mere per se shift
of selected offenders from one form of supervision (i.e., post-conviction) to
another form of the same (i.e., preprosecution) .
Sixth, by so diverting such offenders from the Criminal Justice System, and
thereby reducing the overwhelming caseloads of our criminal courts, all of the
remaining more serious cases which are formally prosecuted will thus be freed
from the real pressures and deficiencies of too scarce manpower, time and
resources which currently exist and which also currently compel the oft-
criticized practice of "plea-bargaining" on the part of prosecuting attorneys.
Moreover, by so freeing such scarce resources, and by, at the same time, adding
to them, we can insure that the areas of criminal conduct which have too long
been ignored and which are ever-increasing in our complicated and technical
society will be more fully dealt with and prosecuted. Such areas include white
collar crime, organized crime, public corruption and the area of consumer fraud.
It is important that v/e bring the resources of the justice system to bear upon
these serious areas of criminal conduct which, even though they are perhaps
less visible and less frightful than violent and assaultive street-type crimes,
are nevertheless, if unchecked, extremely destructive of the very fabric of our
society.
White collar crime and crimes directly perpetrated upon consumers affect a
far greater number of people than do street-type crimes of an assaultive nature.
The collective consequences to the public from the former are extremely dan-
gerous in the sense that many people come to doubt the worth of our society
itself — a society in which criminal behavior is not confined to merely a sub-set
of robbers and murderers, but in fact cuts across every social stratum. If we do
not prosecute in these too long ignored areas, we are fiirther engendering the
general public's lack of trust and confidence in the ability, or even desire, of
government to protect the public good. In addition, we will further encourage
many more of our citizens to lapse into the attitude that criminal behavior is
"normal" human behavior, to become indifferent to it, and indeed to adopt it as
a good way to get ahead in life. Although we must continue to vigorously prose-
cute those who engage in assaultive street-type crime — whether these offenders
are poor or from minority groups or not — we must make sure that the poor,
members of minority groups, and. indeed, the public at large do not lose a basic
confidence in the credibility and even-handedness of the operation of our Criminal
Justice System. We cannot allow the poor or the blacks or other minorities to
continue to believe that crimes committed by those with power, wealth or social
status, either as individuals or as members of a corporation, will go unpunished
and ignored. We cannot allow the disadvantaged and underprivileged to continue
to refuse to testify as witnesses and to sit on juries and refuse to convict those
1071
who commit violent street-type crimes because they believe that it is not fair to
convict these criminals while, at the same time, the government hypocritically
"exonerates" the advantaged members of the more privileged classes whose
criminal conduct certainly has a more widespread effect and which certainly
touches a much greater percentage of our population, even if not in a more
brutal or blood-spilling manner.
Seventh, by diverting selected offenders from the Criminal Justice System, we
can effectively cure the lack of tinality in the disposition of offenders which
exists in the system. Under the traditional system, the wheels of justice once
set in motion often never cease — even after a formal conviction is obtained the
process of appeal, re-appeal, rehearing, habeas corpus petition and so on com-
mences and continues in an unending cycle at not only an extremely high finan-
cial expense to society, but with the further consequences of engendering a lack
of trust or belief in tlie finality of justice. By taking people out of this perpetual
cycle initially, we VNill certainly insure that one of our primary concerns — the
finality of justice — will be better achieved.
Through the implementation of diversionary programs we can more effectively
treat selected offenders through the mode of preventive rehabilitation, as con-
trasted to the traditional Criminal Justice System's wholly post facto and proven
ineffective attempts to rehabilitate offenders. As stated before, we must also foster
the broadest possible community involvement in the solution of the problem of
crime through dynamic, active, and innovative agency co-participation. We must
have and promote diversified and viable alternative community-based methods
of analysis, treatment and support for the offender, such as development of
reading and writing skills, vocational training and education, job placement,
financial aid, learning disability tutoring, psychological and medical care, mar-
riage and family counseling, peer group therapy and counseling, and so on. For
example, in Genesee County, Michigan, certain selected youthful drug offenders
are diverted from formal criminal prosecution by my Office, and, in lieu thereof,
voluntarily attend community-based drug problem treatment centers and so-called
"drop-in" centers, where they are counseled by and relate to previously trained
members of their own more influential peer group in relation to solving their own
drug problems. This kind of integrated communitywide involvement and support
is essential to the success of such diversionary programs.
"We must deal with all offenders at the time when they will still feel the full
impact of the consequences of their actions. We know that the success of behav-
ioral modification attempts is directly correlated to the time span between the
implementation of such attempts and the commission of the initial unlawful con-
duct by the offender. The failure of our penal institutions is perhaps traceable to
the fact that the extreme delays which take place at every stage of the crimi-
nal justice process insure that a great deal of time will pass before any offender
is even given any supervision for a long-past-committed action. The expeditious
diversion of offenders and their immediate treatment in a plan of preprosecution
probation will most certainly shorten this critical time span and will promote
the societal goal of rehabilitating offenders much better than do our present
penal institutions.
Our diversionary program in Genesee County. Michigan, has two distinct
segments. The first segment is called the Citizens Probation Authority. Citizens
Probation Authority does not handle drug-related cases which are handled in the
other segment of deferred prosecution. The accused is asked if he would like
to freely volunteer for the program. If he chooses not to, he is placed in the
regular criminal justice channels. If he freely chooses the Citizens Probation
Authority, an investigation of his entire background takes place and a "treat-
ment program" is established. It should be pointed out that, as soon as the ac-
cused volunteers for the program, all activities, interviews, investigation and
counseling are handled completely by the Citizens Probation Authority — separate
and distinct from the Criminal Justice System.
The Citizens Probation Authority has its own professional staff and the indi-
vidual treatment programs involve either paid or volunteer social workers,
therapists, counselors or concerned citizens with an appropriate background.
Treatment programs last no longer than one year. The Citizens Probation
Authority derives its financial support from LEAA local trust funds, the Emer-
gency Employment Act, and the Genesee County Board of Commissioners. Our
office actively seeks funding sources for the Citizens Probation Authority.
The second segment of deferred prosecution is another type of diversionary
preprosecution probation plan. It is an excellent example of the justice system
working in conjunction with community agencies. This segment involves persons
95-158— 73— pt. 3 8
1072
of any age arrested for possession of drugs and narcotics. Again, individuals are
eligible who have been arre.sted for the first time or vpho have no established
record of antisocial behavior. Accused persons involved in a drug-possession case
can volunteer to be referred to the Genesee County Regional Drug Abuse Com-
mission. The GCRDAC is the coordinating agent for all drug education, treat-
ment, and rehabilitation units in the county.
My office refers an accused person to the justice system liaison ofiicer at the
Commission. The Commission staff then conducts appropirate interviews and
counseling sessions to determine what counseling or treatment program would
be the most appropriate. Legal contracts are entered into by my Oflice and
the modalities offering, among other things, monthly reports on the rehabilitation
progress of the individual. Also, the Commission reports back to the Prosecutor's
OflSce when the individual treatment program has been terminated, either
successfully or unsuccessfully. Unsuccessful terminations result in a return to the
regular criminal justice channels. The treatment or counseling is done at a
Commission-affiliated agency.
Have these diversionary programs worked? In the past seven years, the num-
ber of cases placed on adult probation through the Genesee County Circuit Court
has continued to steadily decline proportionately while the number of cases
placed vith the Citizens Probation Authority has continued to steadily increase.
The probation violation rate for clients of the Citizens Probation Authority has
averaged imder 5%, with many of those being only technical violators rather
than actual recidivating offenders. The program is currently supei-vising over
1,000 offenders a year.
From January 1972, to April 29, 1973, the drug diversionary segment processed
310 cases. Sixty-five offenders have graduated from programs. Ninety-one have
been rejected or have requested prosecution rather than treatment, and the re-
maining 164 are still in treatment. Only four of 305 cases were arrested again
during the year. Roughly speaking, over 70% of the clients referred to the pro-
gram are still involved or have graduated.
Many programs sound good on paper. Why is deferred prosecution working in
Genesee County? There are several important reasons. The nature of the rela-
tionship between the agencies and the Prosecutor's Office is crucial. Because the
case can always be tried at a future date, the Prosecutor does not interfere in
any way with the treatment process, thereby encouraging new and innovative ap-
proaches to treatment which are often discouraged by formal, rigid, statutory
requirements, departmental regulations, and bureaucratic inhibitions. The at-
titude is one of letting those who know their job — do it.
The second reason for our success is the spirit and nature of the treatment
agencies themselves. Because they are responsible only to their clients, they see
themselves as helping, not punishing, and most clients see the process in the same
light. Methods vary from individual counseling to group sessions, and in cases
involving acute behavioral problems, therapy.
Another key to the success of Genesee County's deferred prosecution programs
is our Oflice itself. We have actively sought diversionary approaches. My staff
has continued to work for expansion of community resources, cooperation among
agencies, and has successfully sought funding for Criminal Justice System pro-
grams and community resource support options. We have worked consistently to
remain flexible and have constantly asked for evaluation from those in the pro-
grams themselves and also from outside agencies. Deferred prosecution hasn't
solved all the problems of the Criminal Justice System in Genesee County, but
it has brought confidence — a confidence from a Criminal Justice System that looks
for realistic options, and more confidence in that system from those who work
within it.
A client's participation in CPA takes place before he is actually charged with
an offense, often even before formal arrest. Any offender who meets the pre-
established certain criteria, for example, that his suspected offense be a non-
violent crime and not represent a continuing pattern of antisocial behavior, is
referred by the Prosecutor's Office to CPA for an interview and investigation.
If, on the basis of these preliminary contacts, CPA counselors determine that
the program of preprosecution probation and counseling, as opposed to traditional
criminal prosecution, would offer appropriate treatment, and, if the suspect
voluntarily agrees, the Prosecutor will allow the offender to participate in the
program for the customary probationary treatment period of up to one year
under the supervision of CPA. Given satisfactory completion of such probation,
which may include a requirement of restitution to the victims of a crime, prosecu-
I
1073
tion is dismissed, and any police arrest or booking records are given to the pro-
bationer. CPA may, after careful analysis of both the individual's potential
and the facts of the case, decide at the referral stage that voluntary probation
would not be an appropriate treatment; if so, the case Is then referred back
to the Prosecutor's Office with a recommendation for further consideration and
decision by that Office. Anyone referred to CPA lias the right to withdraw from
the program at any time, with the understanding that his case then becomes
subject to prosecution. Additionally, probation may be revoked by the Prosecu-
tor's Office, upon recommendation of CPA, if the client violates the tenns of
his probation.
To the extent that the above procedure demonstrates a mutual cooperation
between the Prosecutor and CPA in the initial stages of the charging function,
it would appear to be clearly consistent with the traditional legal basis of prosecu-
torial discretion. In fact, the impartiality of the Prosecutor in ultimately making
his final charge decision is not in any way impaired, and ultimate control of the
charge decision always resides in the Prosecutor. One legal basis of prosecutorial
discretion is the traditional and well-founded jurisprudential concept that an
elected and responsible public official is more capable of making impartial
decisions concerning the advisability of bringing charges against an offender
than is a private complainant — the person who in effect made the charge deci-
sion under the old English system of criminal justice. Permitting CPA contribu-
tions of information relevant to the desirable goal of insuring intelligent and
enlightened charge decisions by the Prosecutor does not vitiate the impartiality
of the Prosecutor or the prosecutorial process. A prosecutorial decision made in
conjunction with the helpful and valid information supplied by a politically
neutral OPA staff would clearly tend to be made in a more impartially informed
manner than would the decision of the Prosecutor acting without any such
assistance.
It might be argued that this very impartiality makes the CPA staff insensitive
to public opinion regarding the types of persons who ought to participate. Judi-
cial deference to the judgment of public Prosecutors has often been justified by
the belief that the Prosecutor, especially an elected state Prosecutor, makes
charge decisions that accurately reflect community values. But this objection has
no force since : (1) the CPA worker is protected from improper pressures concern-
ing individual cases ; (2) the CPA program itself was established by the Prosecu-
tor; and (3) the CPA program is always under the Prosecutor's ultimate con-
trol, and thus, through his elected office, provides for sensitivity to community
Thus, CPA operates merely as a supplement of the Prosecutor's Office. It im-
pairs neither the legal justification of prosecutorial discretion nor the Prosecu-
tor's final control over the charge/no charge decision. Rather CPA enhances the
knowledge and expertise necessary for a just decisionmaking process.
The Prosecutor and CPA .standardize the operation of prosecutorial discretion
through the promulgation of rules and regulations to the end, not of expanding
the scope of discretion, but of exercising that discretion more intelligently. The
Prosecutor still makes an individualized, case-by-case determination of whether
to prosecute.
Chairman Pepper. The committee will recess until 10 a.m. tomorrow
here in this room.
[Whereupon, at 5 :15 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at
10 a.m, Wednesday, :May 2, 1973, in room 1302, Longworth House
Office Building.]
STREET CRI3IE IN AMERICA
(Prosecution and Court Innovations)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 1973
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on Crime,
Washington^ D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :10 a.m., in room 1302,
Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Claude Pepper
(chairman) presiding.
Present : Representatives Pepper, Mann, Murphy, Wiggins, Steiger,
IVinn, and Sandman.
Also present: Chris Nolde, chief counsel; Bob Trainor, assistant
counsel; Thomas O'Halloran, assistant counsel; and Leroy Bedell,
hearings officei-.
Chaii-man Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
Mr. Counsel, will you proceed to call the first witness.
]Mr. Nolde. Mr. Chairman, we have two very distinguished witnesses
liere this morning, the district attorney from Houston, Mr. Carol
Vance, and the district attorney from Los Angeles, Mr. Joseph Busch.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me. Counsel.
We will ask ]Miss Jordan if she wants to honor us by coming up and
sitting with the committee.
Miss Jordan. I will do that. I am going to have to leave shortly.
Chairman Pepper. We are very pleased to have our distinguished
colleague from Texas, a former distinguished State senator, Barbara
Jordan, with us today.
I believe one of the witnesses is from your State, Miss Jordan, and
we would be pleased to have you introduce him.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBAEA JOEDAN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Miss Jordan, Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and fellow members of the
committee.
I am most pleased to have the district attorney of Harris County
here this morning, Mr. Carol Vance. I have known him for a long
time. He is not only an outstanding district attorney, but he is a close
personal friend of mine and supporter, if I could add that, which
makes me just a little prejudiced on his behalf.
Mr. Vance is the president of the National District Attorneys Asso-
ciation. He holds high office in the Texas District Attorneys Associa-
tion. He has done great work with the criminal justice council. This is
(1075)
1076
his third term as district attorney for Harris Comity. And for this
third term, he Avas unopposed for reelection, which is testimony to the
outstanding job he has done in Harris County,
I am very pleased that he is here. I am A'ery pleased that you will
hear him. He is a man of great competence in the area and I hope you
will benefit from what he has to say.
Chairman Pepper, We thank the gentlewoman very much for a most
excellent introduction,
Mr. Vance, we are very much pleased to have you.
I now call on the distinguished rankinir minority member of this
committee, one who has made a very valuable contribution to the cause
we are concerned with here. Mr. Charles Wiggins of California,
]Mr, Wiggins, Thank you, Mr, Chairman.
It is my pleasure to introduce a friend, a constituent, and a valuable
public servant for the county of Los Angeles. The witness, Mr. Chair-
man, is the Honorable Joe Busch, the district attorney for the County
of Los Angeles.
District Attorney Busch is the prosecutor for one of the largest
counties in the world. Xearly 7 million people live within the juris-
diction of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. He is
the supervisor of one of the largest law firms in existence.
I believe, Joe, there are approximately 450 deputies under your com-
mand.
Let me say that enormous job, !Mr, Chairman, is performed efficiently
and well in the county of Los xlngeles. Mr, Busch has the deserved
reputation for being an honest and fair, fearless, and aggressive
prosecutor for the county of Los Angeles, By reason of the enormity of
his job, he is able to provide this committee with certain expert testi-
mom' on matters properly within our jurisdiction.
I am particularly interested, Mr. Busch, in your comments with re-
spect to bringing matters to trial and their early disposition. The sub-
ject of speedy trial is one that is confronting this Congress and your
contribution in that area in particular will be both welcome and valu-
able to the committee.
Mr, Chairman, I am honored to introduce to the members of the
committee, the Honorable Joe Busch from Los Angeles,
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Busch, we are very much pleased to have
you.
We are fortunate this morning to have you two outstanding prose-
cuting attorneys to come and honor the committee with your presence
and your presentation.
As you no doubt are already informed, these hearings that we are
having relate first to the most innovative procedures in the police
departments of this country. We had 13 of the outstanding police
departments of the country make statements here of techniques and
procedures, the most innovative procedures in the country. We found
them most interesting and I hope they will be emulated by other police
departments in the countiy.
Previous to the Easter recess, the subject of our hearings was ju-
venile crime and correctional institutions. Of course, as you know, the
courts are very critical of the area of the whole judicial administrative
process. There, again, we had innovative procedures disclosed to us
by outstanding people in these two fields.
1077
Xow, tliis week is devoted to innovative procedures that have been
developed by the outstanding prosecuting attorneys in the country.
Also, innovative procedures and programs developed by trial and
appellate courts, both State and Federal.
We are very much pleased to have you AA'ith us this morning.
And we want to thank you very much, ]Miss Jordan.
Miss JoRDAx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. ]Mr. Counsel, would you inquire.
Mr. NoLDE. Thank you, 'Sh\ Chairman.
]Mr. Vance and 'Slv. Busch both have plane schedules to meet, so if it
meets with your approval, Mr. Vance will open with his prepared
remarks, followed by ]Mr. Busch, and then we will have questions from
the members.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me just a minute.
We are delighted to have another distinguished representative of
the great State of Texas. Robert Casey, one of our colleagues. We will
be pleased to have him come and join us and sit in and inquire if he
will.
Would you care to say anything. INIr. Casey ?
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CASEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
]Mr. Casey. I tell you. ^Nlr. Vance can speak for himself pretty well.
He is one of the ablest, if not the most able, district attorney Harris
County has ever had and people recognize that. He has no opposition
I think he can have it as long as he wants and I hope he wants it a
long time. Our community likes his diligence and his work.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much.
Mr. Vance was just beginning with his statement.
STATEMENTS OF CAROL VANCE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, HARRIS
COUNTY, TEX., AND PRESIDENT. NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTOR-
NEYS ASSOCIATION; AND JOSEPH BUSCH, DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIF.
Statement of Carol Vance
Mr. Vaxce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a real pleasure to be here and have the kind outstanding intro-
duction from Congresswoman Jordan and Congressman Casey and
particularly to be on the panel with mv very dear friend, Joe Busch,
who certainly runs the biggest district attorney's office in the counliy,
an extremelv outstanding prosecutor.
Joe and I both came up through the ranks, sort of the hard way,
and both served as assistant district attorneys for more years than
probably either one of us would like to remember.
I thouglit rather than reading my comments this morning, it might
be a little more effective to just sort of go through some of the things
we are trying to do.
Chairman Pepper. Without objection, we will incorporate your en-
tire statement in full in the record and you may proceed to summarize
as you wish.
1078
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vance, above referred to, will be
found at the end of the testimony of this panel.]
INIr. Vance. Thank you.
I do appreciate this opportunity to be here. I have a feeling that
through the years the prosecutors have sort of been the neglected step-
child of the criminal justice system. I say this because many people
that go into prosecutors' offices do this just as a steppingstone to fur-
ther a political career or else to go with a private law firm, and this
cannot really be said with regard to the other professions involved
in the criminal justice system.
For example, a person who goes on the bench generally stays a
judge for a long time; a person who goes into police work generally
intends to make a career out of it. Of course, a lot do not, but they
don't go there to just stay 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years, and then move on.
So I think that the prosecutor's office is the hub of the whole
criminal justice system, and they are the ones that basically set the
tone or determine which charges will get into the system to begin
with. So we must have career prosecutors and upgrade the entire
profession of the prosecutor.
Concerning plea bargaining, this is something that we nearly all
have and must have. The cases simply cannot all be tried. The prose-
cutor has perhaps as much to do with the setting of punishment as any
other person in the entire system. He works closely with the police
officers, advising them. He is just in the middle and yet prosecu-
tion lias been a neglected area.
We have been extremely fortunate in the State of Texas so far as the
LEA A funds are concerned. We have pi'obably spent more on courts
and prosecution by far, from my study of the figures, than any other
State. I think that I heard Jerry Leonard once say he felt Texas had
the best balanced pi'ogram, or as good a program as any State in the
country.
I think one of the reasons he said this was because in 1973, approxi-
mately 20 percent of the funds in Texas are plamied for courts and
prosecution. Obviously this is an area in which we need reform. If we
don't process criminal cases properly, then the entire system fails.
We cannot put all of this money into hardware for corrections and
neglect the court systems, prosecutors oi" pro'bation officers.
I have served on the Texas Criminal Justice Council and we have
tried to do things with this money in our courts and prosecution, that
would make some impact upon crime. Of course, it is difficult to look
at statistics and see what impact you have, because we have, like Los
Angeles, a growing community, now close to 2 million persons in Har-
ris County. Our chamber of commerce estimates our growth at 50,000
people a year. It is a community of all segments, of diverse occupa-
tions, of people moving there from all parts of the country. We have a
vast seaport. We are a port of entry — the gateway to Mexico and
Soutli America. We have all of the reasons to have a high crime rate.
But I think that some of the programs that I will discuss this morn-
ing have helped level our incidents of crime — although I caution it is
ii little early and premature to judge the impact of them.
One day I was called by Joe Frazier Brown, who, until recently, was
the distinguished executive director of the Texas Criminal Justice
Council, and he said, "Carol, if you had a blank check in Harris
1079
County today to do with these funds as you saw fit, what would you
do?" .
And I exphiined that I was appalled that cases are not coming to
trial as rapidly as they should. They were coming to trial — at that
time — that Mas about 2 years ago — after a considerable delay of 15 to
18 months.
I told Judge Brown, "This is deplorable. If we have punishment, if
wo are going to spend money on correctional facilities, if the accused
is going to get probation, if he is in jail, if he is out on bond and likely
to be committing other offenses, the most important thing we can do
is try this pei-son quickly."
I told him, "Our jail is getting overcrowded. We are going to have
to build a new jail facility and I don't know that that is money well
spent. Perhaps on some correctional facilities, yes, but a jail facility, a
holding facility, no."
So I said, "I think we need some temporary courts."
So we examined the law and through a Texas Criminal Justice
Council grant we obtained two additional courts. This grant works
like this :
Visiting judges are sent in to man these courts. It took quite a
bit of staff by way of clerks and support personnel, I guess the cost
is about the same as it would be with any other two courts. But this
has really helped. Instead of increasing our jail population because
of a tremendous increase in the number of indictments in the last 2
years — they went from 12,000 to 18,000 in the last 2 years — the jail
population has actually decreased. We did not have to build a new
jail.
Also, we achieved a first trial setting in our courts within 3 or 4
months after the offense has been committed. They might not get to
trial on that day, and we have some cases that are over a year old
due to legislative continuances, or cases that have been set "three or
four times, lawyers in another trial, witnesses missing, and all kinds
of legitimate reasons. Eeally, we have so many cases pending that it
is difficult to give you an accurate figure of how long it takes to try
cases. It depends on the nature of the case, it depends on whether
the person is in jail or on bond. But the first trial settings in most of
the courts are now coming after 4 months instead of approximately
15 months.
One of the reasons for this is the fact that our two courts under this
grant concentrate on trying jail cases. Now, we have two more courts
sitting over there. One of the dynamics of court management is when
a person sees the State has announced ready, it is rather strange how
they all want to plead guilty. If the defense counsel knows you cannot
get to trial that day because another case is in trial, then he an-
nounces ready and knows that his case will be continued by operation
of law.
Yet, if there are two other courts that cases can be transferred to, a
tremendous number of pleas are entered.
Therefore, this has been a most helpful use of LEAA funding.
Also, judges, I guess, like prosecutors in some respects, are a funny
breed. You can have a good prosecutor or good judge and yet they can
be lousy administrators for keeping the case flow going. In reality,
they ought to be in the process of judging. That is what they are
1080
being paid for and not to be in the pajDer-shuffling business. But, the
paper-shuffling business is a necessity to a successful court operation.
So, i^ursuant to this same LEAA grant we obtained a court adminis-
trator and a court coordinator for each court. This takes a lot of time
off the judges. Coordinators can plan dockets well in advance. There
is one coordinator for each judge.
Another advantage was to give control of dockets back to the courts.
We used to set the cases, the district attorney's office did, I didn't have
any real objection to it but this isn't our function. It is not the, defense
counsel's function to set the case. The judge ought to be setting these
cases and they ought to be set in accordance with some sort of priority
and planning. So the court administrators have helped.
We are now in the process, through more LEAA funding, of putting
in a computer. My opinion is we wouldn't have gotten any of these
tilings from the regular funding sources without LEAA money. This
computer operation, when it gets installed, is going to prevent such
things as a pereon getting lost in jail due to having, at times, five
persons with the same name, and multiple situations as to why persons
are in jail.
In our county, we have charges coming in from nine justices of the
peace and 22 police departments. There are so many different agencies
involved when 3'Ou are handling approximately 50,000 serious criminal
cases a year — counting the serious misdemeanors and juvenile cases —
we need the kind of machinery that can help. The computer program-
ing has been very important.
We have l)een about the last 18 months in planning the computer
programs. We don't really know how they will work out, but they
are now producing daily jail lists. Also, the people who do the work
on the computers are persons in our department of corrections. This
is a great use of labor to help the courts.
Another thing that has caused the jail population to go down is a
pretrial release program that was instituted pui'suant to an LEAA
grant, and they have tlie usual point system and they are pretty care-
ful as to who they release. They make some mistakes but their rate
of persons coming into court is as good or better than bail bondsmen.
I doubt we would have had this program either without LEAA
funding.
Let me talk about some prosecution programs we have instituted.
The one of the highest priority and the one I am most proud of is what
we call our "organized crime division.'' There are lots of organized
crime divisions with district attorneys' offices and there are lots of
task forces and joint task forces and Federal and State task forces.
But ours is the only one anywhere in the country that has been com-
pletely funded by LEAA and is completely within the district attor-
ney's office.
As matching funds, we used our special investigations bureau. The
whole unit consists of seven lawvers and one investigator. The em-
phasis of these attornevs is what is so different. Altogether, we have 90
lawyers on our staff- This is a tremendous expense of the taxpayers'
money — $2.4 million a year — and yet on a caseload basis, it is not
adenuate.
Most of our lawyers are assigned to courts. Prior to our special
investigations bureau and organized crime division, the only things
1081
we were investigating and prosecuting were the cases that just came
to us by way of police officers making arrests through ordinary routine.
Kow we have seven law3'ers and an investigator that concentrate, you
miglit say, more on people rather than cases that happen to come our
way. This group of lawyers zeros in on professional criminals.
For example, take a recent car theft ring. In this $6 million opera-
tion 20 of 22 persons involved were sent to the penitentiary as a result
of a 1-yoar investigation. "We have been in the narcotics area. The Avork
is hard in tliis division. Two lawyers have been tied up for about the
last 5 montlis on a matter involving public corruption in the fire
department.
We have been involved in all kinds of organized crime activity in-
cluding attciupts of the LCX to gain a footliold in our county.
We have been fortunate. Federal agents and others in Washington
tell me we piobably have as clean a city as anywhere in the country
as far as the Cosa Xostra is concerned. We don't have any members in
Harris County. But we know that they would like to move in. And
there are other organized crime groups and activities other than the
LCX.
So we work on any group of people that get together and conspire
and make their living off crime, whether in the narcotics area, auto-
mobile theft area, receiving of stolen property, or hired killings. Also,
this manpower gives us a chance to look into many large crimes such
as embezzlements that are difficult, if not impossible, for present local
law enforcement agencies to investigate.
Last year, to give you some type of idea of how many cases were
handled, there were 218 indictments that were returned by Harris
County grand juries as the result of investigations by this particular
division. I would match the work of this hard-working, dedicated
group of lawyers, against any group of seA^'en lawyers anywhere.
Our organized crime division provides a better relationship between
all law enforcement agencies. Somehow it is a little easier for the
district attorney to coordinate joint law enforcement efforts. Some-
times it goes a little smoother than when you have two other police
departments or law enforcement agencies getting together. We work
very closely with the State department of public safety and their
intelligence agents, with the Houston Police Department, the sheriff's
office, and also work very closely with many of the Federal agencies
on matt^^rs of mutual interest, where it is easier to prosecute statewide
or turn over information for Federal prosecution.
We have been sort of a clearinghouse for information on organized
crime activity. Of course, when you get into this area, it depends upon
the integrity and competence of the people on an individual basis.
There is no way I could have started such a division regardless of
its high priority. It takes $200,000 a year to maintain this division.
Yet, I think the impact is tremendous. When you get persons that can
get involved in investigations and work on the big people rather than
the ones that just happened to get caught in the stolen car or burglary,
this is effective. We are very proud of this particular division and the
impact that we believe it is making.
XoAv. one thing that is true in police departments is that there arc
few in this country tliat have gone out and hired lawyers and C.P.A.'s
and accountants to do investigative work. Yet you go over in your
1082
Federal agencies, the FBI or whatever, and you find many lawyers,
accountants, and others that are qualified to look into very compli'-
cated business crime, to get the records, interpret them, make some
sense out of them before taking a case to the U.S. district attorney's
office.
This is not true on the local level except for a handful of depart-
ments around the country. It is not true in my county. We don't have a
section in the Houston Police Department or sheriff's office where there
are lawyers or accountants or persons with expertise going into busi-
ness records, corporate swindling schemes, and this kind of thing. So
our office must be involved, including major consumer frauds as
pyramid clubs, etc.
I think this is real important.
Mr. Wiggins. May I interrupt at that point to inquire about that
type of investigative capability. Should it exist within the police de-
partment or under the jurisdiction of the district attorney, in your
opinion ?
Mr. Vance. I think the guideliTies that wei-e written by the National
Council on Criminal Justice in this area are pretty well set out. I think
they are good. I think if it is a routine sort of an embezzlement kind of
case, even though it may be complicated, I think it ought to be in the
police department or the investigative agency. However, we don't
have persons so qualified. They just say, "Go over and see the district
attorney."
I think any investigation involving public corruption — such as, in-
vestigations of a police department or its officers, police brutality, pula-
lic corruption cases, or extremely complex investigations, and the con-
sumer fraud area, which requires so much legal Icnowledge to determine
what cases ought to be filed — should be done by the district attorney.
I think it would be a mistake to oversimplify or generalize. It is
restricting to overly categorize. Our best investigations and results
have come from a joint effort and joint sharing of information and a
team effort of police agencies and the prosecutor. Also, consider the
waste of manhours if you get investigators on a highly complex case
out of a local law enforcement agency that has spent thousands of
man-hours and then a lot of this information is not usable because they
didn't realize it would not be material or relevant and admissible in
court.
So you have to use a commonsense approach to be effective.
Let me take up another project in Harris County. We are lucky to
have three law schools there. We used funds — only $24,000 a year and
one of the best expenditures of money I have seen — to hire six law
students on our staff. They get paid for 20 hours work a week, but they
really average about 30, according to the time records, and these peo-
ple are a part of our office.
The last assistant district attorney I hired had been number one in
his law school class. We are getting extremely qualified applicants.
Our student assistants go back and spread the word and we get more
applications and it generates a high quality of persons wanting to go
into the prosecutor's office and also starts the seed of generating career
motivation.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me. You mean you employ them part
time while in law school?
1083
Mr. Vaxce. Yes. We o;enerally try to get them about anywhere from
12 to 18 montlis before they finish law school and they can practice on a
limited basis, their senior year. And during their stay, we put them in
about two departments. They do very menial tasks, but they will get
to know^ the people, see the office organization, get a feel for it, and go
into court some. So it will be like the equivalent of several months full-
time experience as an assistant, so far as knowing certain things that
are necessary. This has been real helpful.
But the main thing is generating interest.
Also, we invite persons to be student assistants from our law schools
on a voluntary basis. We have about 40 or 45, I can't even keep up
with it, students assigned to work wath particular prosecutors. These
students receive academic credits in most instances. They are not paid.
This program is with all of the three law schools we have in the
city. This generates a lot of interest, too. So this has been a helpful
program because the staff is no better than the quality of people
we have. We have to get good people and keep them there. That is the
important thing.
With regard to management, we received a grant about 2 years ago
to do a 1-year management study. Pete, Marwick & Mitchell did it.
The reason w^e asked them to do it was they had already studied the
Texas prosecutor's system and were already familiar with certain
basics. They had written a large book that could be available to this
committee, if it would be of any interest, on the office of the prosecutor
in Texas.
Chairman Pepper. We would appreciate if you would make it
available.
Mr. Vance. Fine. I will make a note and send that. So they came
in and they went through our office. Through the years, you had a
lot of management experience in the police area because you had the
International Association of Chiefs of Police with a very large staff.
They have been in the management area a long time. Yet in the
prosecution area, the National District Attorney's Association has just
gotten in this the last 2 years, and we got into it in a fairly significant
way.
Because of this study our office was reorganized. We were using a
lot of procedures we did not need. We streamlined the flow of cases,
the reporting, knew better who was doing what, this kind of thing.
It Avas something you need in any organization, and I won't elaborate
on it any more. When you spend a bunch of money, have a bunch of
people, and many problems, it helps to have a systematic study. So
I am real happy that the NDAA recently obtained an LEAA discre-
tionary grant for the National Center for Prosecution Management.
It has been helpful in serving the prosecutors' offices around the
country and also writing certain guidelines and suggested procedures
for small-, middle-, and large-size offices. This has been a neglected
area up until recently.
We would not have been able to do that without LEAA funds. To
illustrate, had I gone to the local unit of government and said, "I want
a management study," they would have^said, "Look, you are paid to
run that office, you ought to know^ everv^thing there is to know about it."
Because I spent 8 years as a trial lawyer, and 3 years prosecuting
1084
murder cases, that doesn't make me an expert in paper flow. Every
administration ne^ds expertise in administration.
Another program, which is not original with ns, is our screening
grant. We were able, for the first time in our jurisdiction, to set up
an office to screen charges prior to their being filed. We do this for all
of the city of Houston. We hope to expand it soon for all of Harris
County. When you screen a felony case — and perhaps this is the most
important decision made in our whole process — you decide whether to
put this case in the system with persons being arrested, charged w^ith a
felony, with all of its implications to society, Avith the cost of proc-
sessing that case through court. Therefore, you ought to spend a few
minutes prior to putting that case in the system to see if you have
a case or not.
There are some situations where you don't have a case and will never
have a case. There are others where you do. Others are borderline and
make for tough decisions. But cases must be screened if we are to
raise the level of justice and provide a greater confidence in judges
and juries that ultimately must decide.
Another advantage is to specifically advise police if tliey did some
more work and came up with this or that, the case could be success-
fully pix)secuted. This allows the prosecutor to talk to the investigating
officers at the very begimiing and suggest certain thing-s they can do
before the case becomes stale and witnesses forget.
There used to be a saying, "you can beat the rap but not the ride."'
I don't really subscribe to that theoiT myself. It is perfectly acceptable
for a police officer to go out and bring someone in for questioning with-
out having a completed case. That is one thing. That is proper. But I
don't think you ought to file an actual charge that is going to get into
your system unless you do have sufficient evidence to warrant prosecu-
tion of that case.
One thing we have done under our screening grant is to keep the
office open at nearly all hours. We are open to 2 a.m. every niglit and
3 a.m. on weekends. It is difficult to get the quality of prosecutor you
need to work at midnight and strange hours, doing this type of work.
It is not very desirable work from the average lawyer's standpoint. So
what we did, pursuant to this grant, is to pay our most experienced
prosecutors — already on the staff — to go over and man this important
office, and get paid for it.
Our top lawyers rotate this duty. No. 1, they look forward to making
the money, but the main thing is these prosecutors in court trvina: these
cases have a better understanding of the problem than somebody that
just sits there night after night and becomes institutionalized, bored,
and hardened at this preculiarly undesirable assignment.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me. We had a prosecuting attoi-ney from
Philadelphia here yesterday, Mr. Specter, and I believe he mentioned
about making available legal service to the police department to help
them more to know what they can find out.
Do I understand from what you said, you do discuss these things
with the police, make legal advice available to them ?
Mr. Vance. Yes, sir, we do. What we have, of course, during Monday
through Friday, 8 to 5, there is no problem. We have various depart-
ments and they can call the particular department involved, but nights
and weekends it is very important. The law has gotten complicated, as
1085
I am sure everyone is uware. Drawing up a searcli warrant or a wariant
of arrest that can stand up in court is highly complex and requires
ex}3eit advice on the spot. Or else you could have a case thrown out
tliat miirlit involve $1 million worth of heroin.
In order to try to kill two l)irds with one stone and get our experi-
enced people involved, we sent over the senior district attorney and
he doesn't get paid a large amount. If he is at the veiy top of the staff,
he gets $10 an hour, but he can go over and within S or 1) hours, earn
$90. He gets about as much as a high-gi-ade ])1 umber would. This is
money well spent for a very sensitive position.
Also, we send over a junior prosecutor and he can work on things
like searcli warrants, warrants of arrest, or take routine cases. The
night screening office is manned by a team of two, and they are the ones
screening all of these cases and they provide legal services, mostly in
person to the officers that come in, or by telephone, because we do have
'2-2 separate police departments in our county. So we have this central
office — it is like an extension of the district attorney's office — open at
night and weekends.
Another thing in this area, Ave cut down the time — you know, you
could get into all kinds of law reform with a committee like this, of
what you should do to try to solve the crime-on-the-streets problem, and
I guess you would start in each State, if you were going to do this, and
say, we have a real efficient criminal justice system to begin with. We
do not have efficient legal machinery in the State of Texas. In fact, we
are archaic.
We have a new penal code that we hope will be passed this week by
the legislature. Xow ours is over 100 years old, our penal code. We liaAC
things in our constitution such as you must be indicted by grand jury
before you can be tried.
Concerning the time to take a case from the charge being filed, and
an examining trial set, and taking before a grand jury used to
take about 90 days on the average. Well, w^e got another grant where
we had five more lawyers assigned to our grand jury and examining
trial division and even established regional offices that are there by
day, Monday through Friday, to be a lot closer at hand with the other
police departments in that area and some substantial sized communi-
ties are about 30 miles from the courthouse. Also, due to additional
manpower, we got rid of our backlog and we now present all cases for
indictment within 30 days and many are presented in about 15 or 20
days. This is just another step improvement.
The logical way for any criminal justice system — after the charge
is filed — IS to have your preliminary hearing within 2, 3, or 4 days. If
a judge sees there is sufficient evidence, I should think that gives the
accused more protection than grand juries. I like grand juries on in-
vestigations, but I don't like them on routine cases. After an examining
trial let the district attorney file his information, which is like an
indictment, and you have the case in the system and in the trial court
in about 5 days, rather than going through these duplicitous steps. I^ut
we do have to do that.
Mr. WiGGixs. May I interrupt at this point ?
You indicated earlier in your testimony that you have about a 4-
month wait for trial in your county. At what point do you start
counting ?
1086
Mr. Vance. I am talking about from tlie time the charge is filed.
Mr. Wiggins. Is that after indictment ?
Mr. Vance. No ; I am talking about the period in most of our courts.
What would happen is you would be filed on, let's say, today, 10 days
from then you would have an examining trial, about 10 or 15 days later
your case would be presented to the grand jury for indictment. Let's
say, roughly, 30 days go by there. Then the case would come up for
arraignment in court, about maybe 10 days after that, niaking this
around the 40th day in the actual court that has jurisdiction to try it.
In most courts after arraignment the trial setting is another 45 days.
There are one or two courts further behind and it takes longer. So I am
talking about the first trial setting generally comes around 4 months
at the present time after the offense has been committed.
Mr. Wiggins. Do your statistics include felony and misdemeanor
cases, or only felony cases ?
Mr. Vance. I am talking about felonies. We are in a real dilemma
with misdemeanors. We used to bring all of those to trial in about 45
days after the actual offense was committed. They were getting set at
the 30th day and on the resetting it would be 2 weeks or maybe 4 weeks.
I think we had the quickest trial of misdemeanors like drunk driving,
carrying pistols, aggravated assaults, misdemeanor thefts, as any-
where.
But we haven't had a new county criminal court of law, that handled
these cases, created since 1963, and we have gone from 9,000 cases to
26,000 since 1963. We have a bill that is on the floor of the Texas House
today that would create three more county criminal courts of law,
bringhig us from four to seven, which I think would help alleviate
this problem. I think this will pass.
Mr. Wiggins. The average that you mentioned, does that include
pleas as well ? The 4-month average you mentioned, does that crank in
pleas which are disposed of without trial, as well as the trial itself?
Mr. Vance. Yes. Because the big problem there is that we have a tre-
mendous number of announcements ready for trial. Like out of 18,000
cases disposed of last year, only 700 of those were tried before juries. I
think we had around 11,000 or 12,000 pleas of guilty. On some of those
pleas of guilty, once in a while somebody would come in and would
want to plead guilty early and the matter is submitted to the court and
the plea is taken very early.
But in most instances, whether defendants are in jail or out on bond,
they ask for a trial and they wait until they see the witnesses there and
the jury is about ready to come down before they enter the plea of
guilty.
Mr. AViggins. I understand that. That is normal tactics. How long
does it take to get to trial in your county in the case that actually goes
to trial ?
Mr. Vance. Those that go to trial, around 4 months. In some cases, it
varies. Anywhere from 4 months — I guess we have cases that are 18
months old. But I would say the average case probably goes to trial
around the second setting and around 6 or 7 months would be an aver-
age. But if somebody writes us a letter and says, I want my constitu-
tional right to a speedy trial, whether they are in jail or on bond, it
can be set up within a couple of weeks for a person to have a trial, be-
cause we will transfer it to another court.
But we only get about 3 or 4 of those letters out of 18,000 a year.
Nobody wants their constitutional right to speedy trial.
1087
Mr. WiGGixs. "\Miat would be the impact in your county of a statutory
provision for trial within a prescribed time — 60 days, 90 days,
whatever ?
]Mr. Vance. I think somethinc; ou<2:ht to be done along these lines.
The only thins," tliat scares me — and I testified 2 weeks ago before the
Constitutional Ivights Subcommittee, before Senator Ervin's commit-
tee, about the speedy trial provision — is the 60-day provision, with a
mandatory dismissal date. I am scared to death of the mandatory
dismissal date because I know everybody would then ask for a jury
trial, kuowing we can only try x number of jury cases, and the rest
of the defendants Avould go free.
I think if we had that, we would have chaos. We would be encourag-
iiig everybody to ask for a jury trial. I would hate to see dismissals
with prejudice, or even without prejudice, just simply because a court
couldn't get to a case by a given day.
On any given date, Monday through Thursday, when we have the
trial settings, there are approximately 4 or 5 cases in each of our 10
criminal district courts that are actually set for trial that day. This
is defendants vrho have said they wanted a jury trial. So just by these
percentages — it would be just so easy to frustrate the whole system
by everybody really getting that jury trial. It would throw us into
chaos and if they felt they could get past a certain line and their case
would be dismissed, I think it would be the worst thing in the world.
Mr. "Wiggins. To what extent do the pretrial motions to suppress and
the like, clog or delay speedy disposition of trials ?
;Mr. Vance. A tremendous amount. A tremendous amount because
somebody comes in. and they file a motion and we can spend up to 3
Aveeks hearing maybe one motion to suppress. I think the exclusionary
rule is a ridiculous rule. I think we are going about it the wrong way.
If a police officer makes an unreasonable search and seizure, the police
officer ought to be dealt with. Don't punish the public by throwing out
the case.
I think these motions to suppress, and most of them are there because
of some of the Supreme Court opinions, like the Miranda case on con-
fessions, or the cases on search and seizure with their motion to sup-
press, or what have you. Certain people believe if you can set all of
these motions prior to trial and have particular days for courts to
hear these motions, then you will solve a lot of the "trial issues and
speed u]:» the dispositions. I just find it complicates the system and
adds to the delay.
The more things you have to do in court and the more days you
have to spend doing certain things before you finally get to the trial
to discover whether the man is guilty or not guilty, I think the more
you complicate the whole system of justice.
]\Ir. Wiggins. In your system, do you have a requirement for consoli-
dating trial motions for one setting? Can that be done at one time?
]\Ir. Vance. It de])ends on the judge aiid they are woT-king on some
rules to try to get that done at a particular time. I think if you had
the kind of caseload that your Federal courts have, you could do that
and it would probably be a good thing. But where each of our district
courts are averaging about 1,700 felonies per year, you hardly have
time to take the pjeas of guilty — which now take about 30 minutes to
take a plea of guilty instead of 5 minutes like they used to because
95-158— 73— pt. 3 9
1088
of all of the material that must g'o in the recoid. Most of it is what I
would call a sham, with all kinds of stipulations and paperwork and
people signing- things.
I really don't think all this reall}^ benefits the defendant or his law-
3^er who is sitting there to look after his interests, but we have to do it.
Mr. Wiggins. In your system, is a decision on a pretrial motion
appealable at that time or is it appealable from judgment ?
Mr. Vaxce. Texas is the only State in the Union. I am afraid, where
the State has absolutely no right of appeal. So if the motion is not
granted, then you would have the trial and they would probably
bring up the motion again. Unlike the Federal rules, Texas rules say
you relitigate the matter before the jury or the court in many instances
In Federal court, if you don't bring certain of these things up, prior
to trial, you waive your right to pursue them. But that is not true in
State court. They bring them up again at the jury trial. And if the
defense is ruled against, they can aj^peal tiiat. We cannot appeal these
interlocutory decisions.
Mr. Wiggins. Even by the defendant ?
Mr. Vance. Even by the defendant. He must Avait until after the
trial, and if convicted, he can then appeal.
Mr. Wiggins. I have no further questions.
Chairman Pepper. You may proceed.
Mr. Vance. One last thing that I want to mention so far as the pros-
ecutor's office goes, is something that is real important. This is the
great need to fund an executive director for the prosecutors of each
State. There are two lawyers on the staff for the Texas District At-
torneys Association, and this was also done through LEAA funding.
The dues the prosecutors paid to the organization were just too low
to afford this staff, but there are certain central services that are des-
perately needed. This person has the full confidence of the prosecutors
because, the State prosecutors' association's board of directors decides
who the executive director shall be.
Through our central offices we have accomplished certain projects.
One year the State bar came up with a penal code that had many ob-
jectionable features in it. Even though it had a lot of good ideas, it
never even came out of committee in the legislature.
But our District Attorneys Association spent a year studying and
revising the State bar version. We have 11-man committees and they
meet 2 days at a time about once or twice a month, and we came up
with a good code. In fact, it was in such good shape, the State bar
really liked this version and the State bar is now sponsoring it. They
made a few little changes, but not very many and the code before the
legislature is essentially the prosecutor's version — thanks to LEAA
funding.
I think you need a basic kind of prosecutorial system in any State.
We have a bad system in Texas. I am a district attorney and handle
misdemeanore and felonies. But in a lot of the areas, the district at-
torney handles felonies and the county attorneys handle misdemeanors,
and they have two completely different prosecutors in one place.
You have the same problem as far as judicial reform. You have a
lot of specialized courts and if one judge gets through his docket he
cannot take a case from another court.
1089
I think tlic first place to start is some kind of judicial and prose-
cutorial reform. I hope we would ^ret to the place where we would
have our prosecutors well paid. They should not practice law, and they
should be completely full time except in very sparsely populated areas.
I think the same should be true with the judiciary. I think we are
moving toward professionalization because of having a central oflice
to serve prosecutors. And they provide for the rural prosecutors dif-
ferent training sessions each year and keep them apprised of the law.
So many services are needed to keep a prosecutor up to date, par-
ticularly if he is in a small area.
This move has been very significant in raising the quality and pro-
fessionalization of many of the prosecutors in Texas by having this
centi'al office.
As you can see. I am strong on these LEAA funds. I do think it is
sort of sad that prosecutors" offices generally throughout the Nation,
receive about 1 or 2 percent of the money. And I don't think the
courts have fared as Avell as they should. I just think we have been
fortunate in Texas.
I am opposed to complete re^-enue-sharing concepts where the
moneys will go into roads and bridges, and I am opposed to another
massive AVashington bureaucracy to tell us how to run local law en-
forcement. So I like the LEAA approach as it is now, but I think
it could be modified to call for more funds to go into prosecutors'
and judicial offices because this is perhaps one of the weakest links
in our system as it now stands.
Thank you so much.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you, Mr. Yance.
We will hear now from Mr. Busch and then have an opportunity
to ask questions of both of you.
Statement of Joseph Busch
Mr. Busch. Mr. Chainnan, thank you very much.
It is a pleasure to be here and particularly a pleasure to have
Chuck Wiggins, who is my Congressman
Chainnan Pepper. A very good one.
Mr. Busch [continuing]. A very fine Congressman, to be a part of
this committee.
I might do as Carol just asked, incorporate my prepared remarks
into the record.
Chairman Pepper. Without objection, your remarks will be incorpo-
rated in the record.
[The prepared statement of Air. Busch appears at the end of the
testimony of this panel.]
]Mr. Busch. It is always difficult when the prosecutors from Los
Angeles talk to any committee or appear with other prosecutors, to
compare our functions with what occurs in other parts of the country.
As it has been indicated, I have a staff of 450 assistants. I have eight
different places, eight different branch offices, where felony prosecu-
tion occurs, and where they will be representing perhaps 7.5 million
people.
I have 23 offices, area offices, that handle the consulting with police
departments. We have 50 police departments in Los Angeles County.
1090
Our largeness lias worked against ns in getting any type of grant funds
because yvhen Los Angeles County wants something, it looks like the
State of jNIichigan walking in. We are about that size.
So when you talk about LEAA grants, and that type of thing, why
you can do more for many smaller counties.
Chairman Pepper. Michigan or Florida. We are a little over 7 mil-
lion population.
Mv. BuscTT. That would be just about it. When you walk in and say,
"We would like a grant," you are talking not Dade County, but you
are talking the State of Florida. But I think they are very important.
I thinlv it is important that Congress and State legislatures be in-
terested in upgrading the administration of justice. This may be con-
sidered political folly, but I asked, after I was made district attorney
in Los Angeles County, and permitted the Rand Corp. to come in and
make a study of the adult felony prosecutions within our county and
they just put out the report.
T would ask to leave a copy with the committee.
Chairman Pepper. We thank you for doing so.
[The material referred to was retained in the committee files.]
Mr. BuscH. This, of course, is systems analysis, data analysis, tak-
ing cold statistics, and they arrive at the conclusion we don't have equal
justice in Los Angeles Count3\ In the sense, not that there is in-
justice, but it may not be equal justice.
Now, as a result of that report, I was able to convince my board
of supervisors, our county commissioner, so to speak, to underwrite the
local contribution to a grant of $1 million. This was what — these are
the type of things — a grant of $1 million for me to bring into Los
Angeles County a systems study, management study, as Carol has
talked about. It would be a little more sophisticated than that, per-
liai)s involve programing and computerization.
They have a very fine one, incidentally, in the U.S. Attorney's Of-
fice in Washington, D.C. It is very important to do that. It is so im-
portant that in the county of Los Angeles, what happens in Pomona
to a defendant is the same that will happen to a defendant in Santa
INIonica. In other words, I think it would be important in Florida, a
man accused of a crime in Jacksonville get the same treatment as a
man in INIiami gets.
We really aren't sophisticated enough today in our criminal justice
system to evaluate and know we are doing that. That is why it is im-
portant that there be a thrust from Congress, and through funding to
have this come about. It is very important.
Independent of that concept, as Carol so eloquently talked about,
there are other areas we should be concerned about and I think the
Congress should be concerned about. I think that there should be more
diversionary programs. And by "diversionary programs," I mean re-
habilitative programs without giving somebody the stigma of convic-
tion, for it is so apparent among minorities and economically depressed
people, that they will have convictions, and it works against them for
the rest of their lives.
And crime is a product of the young : 90 percent of all crimes occur
between the ages of 15 and 29 years. It is a product of the young, and
they gradually outgrow much of it and the stigma of arrest and con-
viction is something we should be concerned about. It is so hard to
1091
erase a record. You see the records and the things they talk about in
juvenile courts.
So I think the funding of diversionary programs is very importsint.
In other words, you don't prosecute, you rehabilitate the first offender,
whatever it maybe — the most popular program is the drug programs—
and see if they can't correct their wrongful attitudes without the
stigma of arrest.
California has that type of legislation. We are probably a little bit
behind in our diversionary programs, but I would say nov; that half
of our narcotic first offenders are not being prosecuted, they are being
diverted, and that is a very important thing.
Chairman Pepper. About half, you say ?
Mr. BuscH. I would say about half, first offenders. That is very
important.
In our office — and again, we are so large and I have programs that
we institute on our own, particularly in the juvenile field — I have what
we call "partners program." We encourage police departments, prin-
cipals of schools, anybody that has contact with the young, who have
had their first contact witli the law and they are not a serious offender,
rather than process them into the system and expose them, because I
think there is a great area of reform in the juvenile procedures that
should be considered, but at any rate, it is a one on one.
Volunteers, college students, people that want to be involved, and
they take that yomigster and they give him recreation, give him guid-
ance, whatever they may be lacking in their environment. A very suc-
cessful program, very important.
Another program, I have 24 youngsters through a ]Model Cities
neighborhood program, in a grant, on my staff, from the AVatts area,
which is the highest crime incidence area we have in Los Angeles
County. These 24 youngsters are from all of the various high schools
and they create programs in the schools to respect law and order.
They have sympathy and respect for the law. If you don't have
sympathy and respect for the law, you are going to have criminal
activity, believe me. They have — gosh, they have programs bringing
convicts from State prison to talk to people. I think it is the most
successful young people's program that I have seen anywhei'e.
These are right from the ghetto area, right from the heart of it. It
has taken about 2 yeare to lose the stigma that they are the "District
Attorney's Youth "Advisory Council," because it sort of puts you on
the "establishment" side.
That is an effective program. I would encourage other district at-
torneys to be involved in that type of thing. I really feel the role of
the district attorney should be not only concerned about prosecuting
people, screening cases, but to be in criminal prevention and not let the
police departments be the only public relations people as a buffer be-
tween the criminal justice system. It is pretty tough for a policeman
who has to arrest somebody to also be the public relations pei'son.
But these are important concepts and I think should be recognized
by Congress and State legislatures. And as Carol said, there should
be more concern by LEAA into funding moneys for the criminal jus-
tice system with the prosecutor rather than just police departments,
or hardware for police departments.
1092
One other thing I might sa.j about California and one of j'our con-
cerns is the right to speedy trial. We have a GO-da}?- rule in Cali-
fornia for felonies and also it applies to misdemeanors. From the filing
of the information — that is the former pleading in the felony court —
you must be brought to trial within 60 days if you demand it, or you
get it. In our county you get a trial in 60 clays if you demand it.
Now, a "sveapon of defense is delay, so there are many continuances
at the request of the defendant. But over half of our cases are dis-
posed of within 90 days of the filing of the information which we use,
rather than the grand jury indictment. The one unique thing about
our procedure in that area is that if there is a dismissal after 60 days,
it is not jeopardy. So we can refile the case as a prosecutor.
But everybody recognizes it as a valid rule and we do have speedy
trials and I think JNIr. "Wiggins would attest that we pride ourselves
with the speed that we bring our cases to justice.
Chairman Pp:ppei;. Mr. Busch. it is obvious you have been in your
office there with meaningful programs for the public interest.
Mr. Counsel, do you have some special questions you would like to
ask before we start inquiring?
]Mr. XoLDE. Thank you. ]Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps I could just point out seveial things the members would
like to get into.
One, Mr. Vance should address himself to the organized crime
division he establisliecl in his office, as to the efl'ect it would have on
street crime. I think both gentlemen could deal with the issue of
plea bargaining we heard about yesterday from the prosecutor from
Philadel])hia. lie is against ]:)lea bargaining.
Both distinguished gentlemen have screening programs in their
offices designed to screen out the minor cases in order that the prose-
cution and courts can concentrate their resources on the kinds of
offenses that should be given attention. In addition the entire speedy
trial issue sliould l^e addressed.
I tliink Mr. Busch has indicated that prosecutors in California are
able to function effectively under their speedy trial statute, which has
a 60-day limitation. I think ]\Ir. Vance has indicated that a manda-
tory dismissal would ]30se great problems. Both gentlemen could
discuss the issue of whether mandatory dismissal would be a good idea,
and also if the defense were required to proceed within 60 days,
whether that might alleviate some of the dismissal problems if a
similar burden were imposed on the defense, requiring them to be
ready for trial within the same time period. We are interested in
whether that would be a good idea or not.
I now turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman and the members to ask
the questions you wish and I can follow up at the conclusion.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Mann?
Mr. Maxx. ]\Ir. Vance, do you not have a 60-day statute ?
JNIr. Vaxce. ISTo. sir. We have no rule whatsoever. In fact, very few
States. I think Florida and California are about the only two States
tliat I know of, do ha^e such a rule. There may be some more now.
I think tliere is a lot of legislation pending.
Mr. Bltsch. Even if you have the legislation, the courts would not
be bound by that in their opinions because it becomes a fundamental
constitutional right. Any legislation is just a guideline.
1093
Mr. Vance. If it were conofressional, like the bill that is before
Congress now that provides a case will be dismissed if you cannot get
it in within 60 days, it is more than a guideline. That is what I am
scared of.
Mv. BuscH. Of course, it would have a controlling factor but in
certain instances they can declare failure to get trial in 30 days could
be denial of a speedy trial. All you are giving is a guideline.
Mr. Mann. What you might get into is a form of jeopardy. Do any
of them attempt to do that ?
Mr. BuscH. Some of them do make it jeopardy. California does not.
Mr. Vance. I thought Florida nearly did in some respects.
Mr. BuscH. A couple of States may have the jeopardy ruling, but
it is not a CO-da}^ rule. It is a 6-month rule. It is much longer. If you
are concerned about getting a speedy trial, I sa}' put the OO-da}^ rule in
there, but don't make it jeopardy. Delay is a weapon of the defense, not
prosecutors. It is defense attorneys that delay cases, not prosecutors.
Mr. NoLDE. If I may. ^Ir. Mann. I just want to ask Mr. Busch, if you
require the defense to be ready within 60 days, wouldn't that help that
problem ?
Mr. Buscii. Oh, yes; certainly. But I wouldn't want to see the jeo-
pardy attach.
]Mr. JSLvNN. Based on my experience — and this is somewhat face-
tious— the 60-day limitation would put a lot of paid defense lawyers
out of business, because they don't get paid in 60 days.
Mr. BuscH. That is right.
Mr. Mann. Unfortunately, the teclinique is for the defendant to go
out and steal some more so he can pay the lawyer. So that part of it
would be curtailed.
What is your practice, Mr. Vance, with reference to plea bargain-
ing ?
]Mr. Vance. We have plea bargaining and I think every metropolitan
area in the country has some form of plea bargaining, even perhaps in-
cluding the city of Philadelphia, in accordance with conversations I
had with judges and prosecutors there who say sometimes they get to-
gether and decide these cases by advance discussions even though, I
understand, Arlen Specter prohibits his assistants from making
recommendations.
Mr. Mann. I asked him about that and I got the impression in his
answer that they did determine the recommendation that they would
make and they offered that to defense counsel and counsel took it and
they would follow with the plea recommendation.
Mr. Vance. That is what I call plea bargaining.
Mr. Mann. I do. too. and I so stated. But he seemed to think if you
went further than that and compromise occurred, what you are really
pleading for was a fair sentence and came below that, as he expressed,
to give away city hall. Of course, that is bad. Of course, those of us who
engage in plea bargaining don't think we do that; otherwise, we
couldn't live with ourselves.
So I agree with you, it apparently goes on there, too.
Mr. Vance. One thing, in answer to your question, I really think
that plea bargaining, if it is done i^roperly. is a good thing. I agree
wholeheartedly with the American Bar Association's standards in this
area. I think Xo. 1, vou have to have sufficient courts and resources
1094
so you are not giving away the courthouse and that the plea is made
on the basis of the facts involved in the case.
I think, second, you have to get plea bargaining out on the table
where you don't go through a subterfuge there as you are entering your
plea such as we do in Texas and many States.
I think the third thing is you have to bring the judge into it. After
all, it is his final responsibility. I think, ideally, you know, the judge
would take the counsel for both sides back to his chambers prior to it
and say, "OK, what's this case all about," and the prosecutor would
say, "Well, Your Honor, we are recommending 4 years because here
is our side," and the defense counsel says, "We think this is proper
because * '•' * ." At this point the judge can require any evidence or
ask the lawyers any questions he has to satisf}^ himself, and then it be-
comes a joint decision.
I think if you have competent counsel representing the State and the
defendant and the judge approves the bargain, I do not see anything
inherently wrong with a person having a reasonable expectation of
what sentence he might receive should he enter a plea of gniilty. I
think this is one of the things that makes a guilty person enter a plea
of guilty, that is the certainty he will receive a particular sentence and
can adjust his life in accordance w'ith the sentence he will receive.
I don't see anything inherently wrong with that.
I do think you have to have sufficient coui-ts, and you have to have
a balance between trials and pleas. If you don't have the trials, say
you only have the courts to have 1 -percent trials, and everybody asks
for a jury trial, in that case you would just be giving the cases away
to keep up with the cases coming in. I think we would all disagree with
that. None of us wants to do that.
Mr. BuscH. I would make this observation. As long as there are
accusers and prosecutors and defendants, there is going to be com-
promise of cases. I think the abuse of the plea-bargaining process, tlie
abuse of that, enters into the sentence bargaining aspect of it. I have
started a pilot program in our county in three different areas where
my deputies can enter into plea bargaining but not sentence bargaining.
In other words, they are not going to say what a man is going to
get ; they will say what he can plead to. And to eliminate the judges.
We are going to see wliat effect tliat has, what impact that has.
I think that the public generally feels that there is something wrong-
in ])lea bargaining. There is an inherent feeling in the last few years —
I don't know why that has come about, whether it is the academicians
who have come in to study prosecutors' offices, or whatever it may be,
but there is an inherent feeling there is something wrong in "plea
bargaining.
Mr. Steiger. Would the gentleman yield ?
]Mr. Makn. Yes.
Mr. Steiger. I would be happy to tell you, as a layman what is wrong
with plea bargaining.
The habitual criminal is apprehended, released on bond, and com-
mits two other offenses. He is then permitted to plea bargain for that
offense which will give him the lightest sentence and he has paid for
the other two offenses, or six, or nine. That to a layman is offensive.
Mr. Buscii. That would be offensive to me as a prosecutor, but that
assumes that the prosecutor, to get rid of the case, to ease the court
1095
load, to move justice so to speak, is giving tlie guy a break. It isn't dis-
honest, but it is really almost immoral. That is the stigma that plea
bargaining has had.
The reason I mention this program I have, the compromise of a case
isn't bad ; I think what comes about is the sentence bargaining. That
is the part. I agree with Carol that really and truly, as a defense at-
torney, I may have a client that is very guilty and he will plead guilty,
but he will plead guilty only if he knows what is going to happen to
him. He wants to know what is going to happen to him. If he doesn't
Ivuow what the sentence is going to be, whv not have the trial?
Mr. jMann. When you limit the bargaining to
Mr. BuscH. That is where the abuses come in.
Mr. Maxx. Yes; to tlie lesser included offenses, you won't have a
broad enough spectrum in the code-described crimes to pick out the
right slot.
Mr. BuscH. When Arlen Specter says he doesn't engage in plea
bargaining, I don't think that is true. He isn't engaging in sentence
bargaining. These are two different things.
Mr. ]Mann. He recommends sentences, though. He acknowledged
that.
Let me make one other observation, and it is an observation in
response to Mr. Steiger's statement.
He admits to being a layman, and the average layman really doesn't
understand the power of a prosecutor's office. The power of the people
has to reside somewhere and it resides in that prosecutor's office. The
public never quite realizes that that prosecutor can determine whether
or not that case goes forward or whether or not to terminate it. They
would like to think that is the role of the court.
Well, in some jurisdictions, I guess it is. But in most jurisdictions it
isn't. It is a determination by the prosecutor, representing the State,
and he can dismiss all of those cases. He doesn't have to bargain ; he
can just do it because he wants to. It is not a matter of bargaining; it
is a matter of using his power to carry out the function of his office,
and that is to produce justice. And in doing that, he has life or death
powers over all cases, generally.
So because he bargains one or two, or handles them in a certain way,
they can seek their remedy at the poll, which is no use to think people
don't take a vote, or impanel the court to make these decisions, or get
a committee to do it. The prosecutor has that power and it is going
to have to stay there.
Mr. BuscH. Carol touched on it and I didn't discuss it, but the most
important decision that is ever made with a criminal case is whether
or not a prosecutor issues the case; the prosecutorial discretion of
puttino^ it into the system. The most important decision a prosecutor
makes is the screening process.
In my office you have to be a senior deputy. We don't let young men
decide whether somebody comes in. You have to be a senior man —
we have them by grade, and they make that decision. That is long
before plea bargaining.
Mr. ;\LvNX\ That is right.
Mr. WiGGix^s. There is bargaining in that process, too ; isn't there ?
IMr. BuscH. Not really. It is what the police present you with. Yoii
may be bargaining witli the policeman, not with the individual.
1096
Mr. WiGGixs. Surely, in your experience, you have had the oppor-
tunity to receive a call from an attornej^ who says, ''Before you file on
this case, I would like to talk to you about it."" The purpose of it really
is to convince you that you don't have a case, or if you are going to
file, you ought to file a lesser ofi'ense.
Mr. BuscH. If it is the type of a case that isn"t just a file of arrest
of somebody, there has been an investigation. We always extend the
courtesy to counsel to come in and have a hearing to present their side
of the issue before you file a complaint. Yes ; we do that.
]Mr. MuEPiiY. Would the gentleman yield at this point?
Mr. Maxx. I am through.
Mr. Murphy. The reason for this, though, politically speaking, is
that we have a lot of violations going on all over the country, especially
in the Federal system. When you take a suspect before the grand jury
and a determination is about to be made whether to indict or file a]i
information, then leaks to newspapers will say, "So-and-So indicted."'
This is worse than the conviction because the convictions are usually
f OTUid in the back of the paper.
A lot of people are using this for political purposes. The leaks com-
ing from grand juries all over the country is a very serious problem.
Mr. BusCH. We do not use a grand jury indictment system. We use
the preliminary hearing where we have a magistrate and present the
witnesses in open court and confront the defendant before he is held
to answer. Out of 55,000 felonies, we take about 100 to the grand
jury.
Mr. Murphy. Do you discourage going to the grand jury? Is that
what you are saying ?
Mr. BuscH. Yes.
Mr. MuBPHY. '\^'^ly is that ?
yir. BuscH. I think the preliminary hearing and the confrontation
of the defendant and the right to cross examine the witnesses before
he is held to answer, it really lets him know what kind of a case he
has. Defense attorneys have the opportunity of discovery. It gets them
prepared and leaves you in the position, when you get to the arraign-
ment in the superior court, to talk about plea bargaining or to dispose
of the case.
]Mr. ]SIuRPHY. Either one of you may answer this — have you seen
violations of the secrecy of the grand jury ?
^Ir. BuscH. I have never seen a reporter disclose testimony of what
occurred in the grand jury. I have seen witnesses, after they left the
grand jury, tell what they testified to. And in California, that is sup-
posed to be a crime. I don't know how you would ever convict them
of it.
]Mr. Vaxce. I think this is what happens often. Lets say I go into a
grand jury room and I testify I saw "A" shoot and kill "B" at a par-
ticular time and place, and describe it. Even though it is a violation
of the law to say what I told the grand jury.
Let's say a reporter asks me, "Do you know anything about this
case?"
Then I can say, "Yes, I saw 'A' shoot and kill 'B', et cetera."
Mr. Murphy.* I am not talking about a case like that. The kind of
case I am talking about is when you pick up a newspaper and fimd a
columnist that will have a A'erbatim question and then the answer.
There is some violation there.
1097
Mr. Buscii. Absolutely, I have never run into tliat, but that is Avhat
I \\'ould call an absolute violation.
Mr. Murphy. Have you met Jack Anderson ?
Mr. Buscii. No, I haven't. But I read his column. Whether it is the
court reporter who did it — he will dictate to the transcriber, the trans-
criber makes copies. The}'' get paid by carbon copies. Somebody can
pick up a few extra copies.
]Mr. Vaxce. Only the court reporter has it and the trial attorney has
it, and the grand jurors don't get copies, and neither do defense coun-
sels or newspapers until the time of the trial.
But I would agree with Joe Busch, the best use of grand juries is in
investigations and not in routine cases. In ordinary cases, I think the
examining trial and filing of information is a much better way to
handle the investigation. Even where a grand jury is investigating*
someone and even though they come out and there is a "No bill'', it is
sometimes written that a grand jury is investigating a particular mat-
ter. The reporter sees the three witnesses at the grand jury room area.
"When asked, I, or an assistant district attorney, will sometimes say
this matter is under investigation. However, we release no other com-
ment. I think this is better for a person under investigation to have a
"No bill," than to have an examining trial and a lot of damaging
things testified to in open court before the press. Sometimes there is
no criminal case but a tremendous amount of damaoinc; testimony
against a particular individual.
But I do think grand juries are useful for investigations. They do
protect the defendant as well as the State.
Mr. Murphy. Across the country there have been some bills intro-
duced in State legislatures — I don't know about 3'our particular juris-
diction— to do away with the grand jury. I take it from your com-
ments you would not be in favor of this ?
Mr. Vaxce. Not to do away with it. I think we need it in investiga-
tions. But we are slowed down by the fact a grand jury indictment is
a requirement under the Texas constitution, so the legislature can't
even change the law. It would take years to change the constitution.
It would probably be an unpopular thing to do politically, to want to
do away with them. People would tliink I am trying to get more power.
Reall}", if you have an examining trial, that gives the accused more
protection than the grand jury in a routine case.
Mr. ]MuRPHY. Then there is a question of accountability with you.
As Mr. Mann said, the people have to place this responsibility of their
power with one individual who is held accountable. If there are viola-
tions, or some political indictments or smearing of individuals' repu-
tations and characters, then there is some accountability.
With the grand jury, there is no accountability.
]Mr. Vance. That is true. There are some very close cases, like mur-
der cases. You get one witness testifying the person shot and killed
someone without any reason, and you have four witnesses saying it
happened in self-defense. You have a prima facie case. If you iiad an
examining trial, the judge would bind him over for trial because you
made your case. But yet you have maybe indejjendent witnesses that
have no ax to grind, saying it happened in self-defense. It is a i-eal
close decision.
I don't mind running these things by grand jury. It is not a matter
of trying to shift my responsibility to them, but I just think as citi-
1098
zens, in the sometimes real close cases, to develop a case before citizens
such as would sit on ordinary juries is a real useful thing.
Mr. BuscH. It is a check for the prosecutorial discretion. JNIaybe he
would go ahead and again just accuse a man and go to the preliminary
heai'ing and ha^e the public hearing, but it may be a close question
and you want the judgment of sincere individuals. I would always
presume grand juries and the people that sit on them are sincere in-
dividuals, not controlled by a prosecutor.
jNIr. Vaxce. Another thing along those lines, sometime we turn down
charges. Some people feel it is a matter of right to file a criminal
charge and get it in the system. At least with a grand jury, there is one
body other than an appointed prosecutor who can look at the thing
and say, we ai'e going to return an indictment.
INIr. MuRniY. I know the function of the grand jurj^ ]My point is
that it is being so abused today throughout America that people's rep-
utations are on the line through statements made by prosecutors. For
instance, in Illinois there was a racetrack scandal. Some people were
brought to trial and some people were convicted.
But then the prosecutor makes the statement : "We are continuing
our investigation and we are looking at some 9 or 10 legislators." I
think that is unfair.
]Mr. BusciT. I think that is true. I think it is unfair to make public
statements about it.
At the present time, back in my county now, they are talking about
the possibility in the EJhherg case there was a burglary and the press
is all over my office wanting public statements. What am I going to do
about it ? Well, I am not going to talk about it. That is what I am
going to do. I am not going to talk about it.
]Mr. MuRriiY. You are a unique prosecutor, then, because a lot of
them don't liold that same degree of integrity and they go to the
press. I think this is a dangerous thing. I can appreciate your com-
ments about it.
]Mr. WiGGixs. I have several quick questions, Mr. Busch.
In the county of Los Angeles, the practice of plea bargaining is
almost institutionalized.
;Mr. BuscTT. That is true.
Mr. WiGGixs. It has been recognized as a proper function by no
less than the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Is it currently the practice to lay all of iho, facts before the judge
who accepts tlie plea ?
]Mr. Buscii. Yes. When we engage in plea bargaining, or sentence
bargaining, we will have conferences with the defense attorney. If
the judge wishes — some judges don't — we have conferences with the
judge. Then at the time the plea is taken in open court, all of the dis-
cussed negotiations are made part of the record. What has been of-
fered, what has been accepted, the discussions, and if the judge has
been part of it. what his sentence Avill be. That is part of the official
plea record.
^Ir. WiGGixs. You end up with the magic question of whether or
not the plea which is offered, or rather accepted, by the defendant is
A^oluntarily accepted without inducement of reward and promises of
favor or the other ritualistic type of statement ?
1099
Mr. Buscii. No ; that is not done any more. When I was first a young
prosecutor and you took a plea to one kind of robbery and dismiss
two, you say, "Arc you doing this freely and voluntarily, witlioiit any
promise V And the fellow would say, "Yes."
AVell, that isn't true. You were going to dismiss a couple of counts,
Xow, you say, "You are pleading guilty because you are guilty? You
are, in fact, guilty, but you understand that two counts of robbery will
be dismissed in exchange for the one count of robber}- and the sen-
tence will be State prison, or whatever it may be."
]Mr. WiGGixs. To what extent is the court bound b\' sentence bar-
gaining in which the court did not participate?
Mr. Buscii. He would not be. Most of the judges at the time of the
plea, if there is a sentence bargaining, they will indicate that they
have agreed to this particular sentence, based on the representations
that have been made at this particular point.
In California, any felony case has to be referred to the probation
department for investigation. If the probation report would show facts
that the court had not considered, or had been misled, they will set
aside the plea.
]Mr. Wiggins. Xow, another area. I think you have tried hundreds
and hundreds of felony cases, ]\Ir. Busch. Would it expedite the trial
without alfecting its fundamental fairness if the voir dire right of
defense and prosecuting attorney's in selection of juries were severely
curtailed ?
]Mr. BuscH. As a trial lawyer, I hate to see the judge do the voir dire.
If I were a defense attorney, I would ^^ant to pick that jury and if I
were prosecutor, I would want to pick the jury. I wouldn't want the
judge to do it. I don't think it would speed up the trial with the judges
doing the voir dire in State courts.
Again, there are abuses of it. But I think the judge should be able
to control it. But I don't think the right of voir dire should be taken
away from counsel. They are picking the jury, not the judge.
Mr. WiGGixs. ]\Ir. Vance ?
Mr. Vance. I think it should be very much curtailed. I do think the
prosecutor and the defense attorney should have a right on the part
of their case to make certain basic inquiries of the panel as a whole,
or maybe even individual questions, Imt I do think it is ridiculous to
spend 1 or 2 weeks picking a jury when you could get substantially
the same amount of justice by 3 or 4 hours, perhaps, on an average
felony case.
I think it depends on how complex the case is, as to how long the
jury selection should take, because some should take longer than others.
But I think the judge should be in the position to limit it and perhaps
have a statute that would give him this power and by case law say a
particular type case, to limit it to 80 minutes to each side to make
certain general observations to the jury, to ask them questions, and
the judge explain the remainder of the law, would very much speed
up our entire system.
Mr. Wiggins. Back to Mr. Busch.
Kecognizing the prosecutor's interest in conditioning the jury and
the interest of a defense counsel doing exactly the same thing, trying
to rise above those biases and prejudices, if you were limited in your
1100
voir dire, if the defense were limited in its voir dire, do you think it
M'oiild affect the fundamental fairness of the trial?
^Ir. BuscH. No. I would have to agree, I don't think fundamentally
to limit voir dire would affect the outcome, except that when you are
an advocate, whether prosecutor or defense attorney, I just can't see
alienating your entire right to have the power of voir dire and give
it to the judge.
I do not believe it would substantially affect justice.
Mr. Wiggins. Another quick area. Have the hundreds and hundreds
of fourth amendment-based decisions, in your opinion, deterred un-
lawful police conduct in any major way ?
Mr. BuscH. No. I think the exclusionary rule and the application
of the fourth amendment as a result of — ^you know, exclusion of evi-
dence— have not affected police conduct in any way.
]\Ir. Wiggins. Mr. Vance, the same question to you.
INIr. Vance. Very same answer.
I would deal with the individual who makes an unreasonable search
and seizure and deal with him in accordance with how unreasonable
his search and seizure was and what all of the circumstances were and
not exclude the evidence and scorn the public.
Mr. Wiggins. One final question, Mr. Busch. Would it speed up the
process of trial, in your opinion, without effecting the fundamental
fairness of the trial if, (a) the size of jury were limited to the extent
constitutionally permissible, and it may be constitutionally permis-
sible ; and (h) ii something less than unanimous verdict were required ?
Mr. BusGii. Yes. I even wrote my thesis when I was in law school
that the requirement of unanimity in criminal trials where you have a
test of beyond a reasonable doubt, to me is not necessary.
I wouldn't say that in a capital case, a death case. But, I do not
believe that f undamentall}^ things need be decided by 12 people ; 6 peo-
ple could decide it.
I think smaller juries and less than unanimous verdicts would speed
up the process of justice and not do injustice.
Mr. Wiggins. Do you agree with that, Mr. Vance ?
Mr. Vance. I certainly do. New Orleans, La., has nonunanimous
verdicts and they have been upheld. I would select a number like 10,
allow 10 to return a verdict. Most of all our hung juries are like 10 to
2, or 11 to 1.
Further, I think a six-man jury and less peremptory challenges
w^ould speed up the process in handling sentences of not more than
10 years in prison. This is for cases other than armed robbery or
murder, where you want a full-scale jury. With a six-man jury why
not let five return a verdict. I think it would be very helpful.
Mr. Wiggins. I think the summary of your testimony to be, if _we
could implement all of these suggestions, limiting voir dire, limiting
the number of jurors, modifying the unanimous verdict rule, it would
have a favorable impact on speeding the process of criminal justice?
Mr. Vance. Very definitely.
Mr. Busch. Very much so. _
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Steiger ?
Mr. Steiger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1101
I restipulate, as Uv. :Mann has said, I not only admit j.o.Vf ^£^,\^^>;:
man, I revel iA that fact. Also, you can lead a rich full life find not
ever have met Jack Anderson. ^ ivr itt-
I am concerned because I think Mr. Busch s response to Mr. ^Ylg-
<rins' question with regard to voir dire is very interesting from this
aspect I have come to the conclusion that the entire criminal justice
pi^cess in this countrv. both at the State and Federal le^^l has been
reduced to a kind of oamesmanship m which the personality and the
eo-o of the counsel plavs a major role, in which victory has become not
onlv more important than justice, but in many instances— and I hate to
generalize because obviously, there are exceptions-but in many in-
stances victory for defense counsel or for the prosecutor is all
^'tndliie fact you, sir. have very candidly expressed the idea you
would like to have the edge by loading the jury to people who might
be sympathetic to vour approach and recognize the defense has the
same desire-and, of course, we would all be very naive if we didn t
think that was our purpose-it has occurred to me again, as a laymari,
that any kind of random sampling, any kind of random selection of
jurors, 'whatever number, over any given period of time has got to be
niore equitable than any kind of injuries resulting from a series of pe-
remptory challenges or challenges for cause.
Obviously, in the specific matter confronting us at the time we ha^ e
reason to be concerned. But the point is, not only with the exclusion-
Irsr laws and fourth amendment defendants, but with a whole variety
of' structures which we have created because of laws and bupreme
Court decisions, in a valid and honest attempt to protect the innocent
and accused, we have erected a barrier behind which the guilty can
conceal himself just as cleverly. <: • . • r ^„^^«o
That is where this ego process, or the superseding of justice, becomes
a very serious matter. . . ^ a
I don't mean to lecture, and I don't expect you to respond.
Mr. Busch. I know, yes.
Mr Steiger. Fine: if you would like to respond, please do.
Mr". Busch. We have'^the finest system of justice of any country in
^'it'^i's^n adversary proceeding. You are an advocate. I represent
the people when I try a case. Defense attorneys will voir dire a ]urv
and sa.^ "Would you be fair to my client," I voir dire that jury and
say, "Will you be fair to my client." The issues are drawn. People will
be imder oath and presumed to tell the truth and they will be cross-
examined and this is a real adversary proceeding. ' . -u
I would never want to see that stopped, even to the point where as
an advocate I would be denied the right to talk to the people who are
going to judge my case for my client. Just as for the defense attoi-ney
who is askini those people to judge it for his chent. It is a very healthy,
^TncUrj^st say, to do it at random, I think that would not be a fair
'^Mr'^STEiGER. In the course of a 12-month period Mr. Busch, how
many felony charges would result from your offices activities; not
how many you consider, but how many are charged i
1102
Mr. BuscH. We file about 50,000 to 55,000 felony complaints. Those
are screened by professional people and the conviction rate, if you
are interested in that, is about 88 percent.
One thing' a prosecutor should never do is put an innocent person
into the system. That is why you screen the cases. We only want to
have the people in there — the test in my office is, "Would it probably re-
sult in a conviction." Note, "probably." If not, don't issue it. Don't
expose a person to that.
Mr. Steiger. The 55,000 figure are those who have survived the
screening process ?
Mr. BuscH. That is right.
Mv. Steiger. Of those, how many plead guilty ?
Mr. BuscH. Actually, over half of the defendants who are accused
plond guilty. Over half ; about 60 percent.
Mr. Steiger. Of the half who would plead guilty, is tliat the result
of plea bargaining ?
Mr. BuscH. Not necessarily.
Mr. Steiger. What percentage would be the direct result of plea
bargaining ?
Mr. Buscii. Again, using the term "plea bargaining" in the
sense
Mr. Steiger. I will define it as I understand it : In which the defense
counsel and the prosecutor's office engage in negotiations which result
in a common agreement as to charge and sentence ?
Mr. BuscH. You always discuss with counsel when you take a plea ;
but in that sense, if you were to take out of plea, not talking about
sentence, probably half of them would have to be. At least half.
Mr. Steiger. Mr. Vance, I wondei" if you could respond as to the ap-
proximate number of complaints that are filed, felony complaints
that are filed, and the approximate proportion of those that are re-
solved by plea bargaining.
Mr. Vance. Well, we had 18,000 indictments disposed of last year.
There were some 700 jury trials, where, of coui-se, there was no plea
bargaining. There were approximately 12,000 that resulted in pleas of
guilty. Now, vv^e have a different system in Texas that causes our fig-
ures to l>e a little high.
For example, if somebody commits a burglary and felony theft we
have to have two separate indictments even though it is one trans-
action. It is ridiculous.
Mr. BuscH. We don't do that.
Mr. Vance. A person might get probation on the burglary and have
theft counts dismissed and that would be a conviction. So we have one
conviction and one acquittal.
But there were about 12,000 pleas of guiltj^, so I would say it would
be around 6 percent of the cases were tried by juries compared to those
who pled guilty. I would say 95 percent of those who pled o^iilty were
the result of the plea bargaining process and maybe another 5 percent
plead to the court without a recommendation.
These were more of a contested matter.
I think you brought up a tremendously interesting point a while ago
in talking about plea bargaining and the habitual criminal who keeps
on committing offenses. When I say plea bargaining is a good thing, if
our goal is to put the habitual criminal in as long as the law provides,
1103
we should not plea bar«iain in these kinds of cases. These persons
should be tried and not subject to plea bargaining.
Yet there are so many cases.
Take the IT-year-old who has to be tried as an adult in my juris-
diction, who has not been arrested before and joy rides in an auto-
mobile, and didn't intend to take it and go sell it to someone. That is
pretty much of an automatic probation case if there ever was one.
I don't see anything wrong with recommending a specific probated
sentence so long as the judge knows all of the facts and he agrees.
You miglit have an armed robbery case — we don't reduce offenses,
often in that our law just doesn't provide for offenses being reduced
for the most part. We will take the plea on the actual charge. Like on
robbery cases for example. Let's assume it is a first offender robbery
and you assume a judge or jury upon a full-scale hearing for this first
offense, one armed robbery, would give in the neighborhood of 7 or 8
years, let's say, or 5 years for the first time out.
We are perhaps a little tougher on armed robberies than some juris-
dictions. But I don't see anything wrong in going back and making
the judge a part of this thing. He knows all of the facts, and saying,
''Judge, we have talked this thing out, both of us agree, even the
defendant, that 7 years would be the proper recommendation for
pleading guilty to this particular robbery offense."
I think the public, if they know all of the facts would say, "Yes,
that is proper." That is someAvhat in the neighborhood of what I would
do as a juror.
Where we get into a problem, is where the public sees somebody,
and knows he ought to be tried because he has been in the penitentiary
five times before and charged as a habitual criminal, and a prosecutor
let him plead for a shorter sentence because of overloaded dockets.
My concept of plea-bargaining would try to come out with a verdict
that would be acceptable to the public, to the community, according to
the morals and justice of the day. And you cannot do this unless you
have sufficient courts to try a good percentage of the cases.
Mr. Steiger. Mr. Vance, I want to make it very clear that I do not
object to plea bargaining. In fact, you gentlemen here have eloquently
stated what is the fact in every metropolitan jurisdiction in this coun-
try. There are more cases resolved by plea-bargaining than by any
that result in convictions by either jury trial or straight giiilt}' pleas.
That, I think, is true anywhere in the country.
My point in questioning this is, since plea-bargaining, in spite of
what Mr. Specter says
Mr. BuscH. I don't know how he says it.
Mr. Steiger. Plea-bargaining is an accepted and responsible por-
tion of our criminal jurisprudence.
My question is : Have we ignored it in the construction of the law ?
Have we generally chosen to pretend it didn't exist because to the public
it has somehow a stigma; which I think is improper. I think we have,
and I think we aren't being realistic. I don't think anybody fails to
recognize the significance of the prosecutor's power to determine
whether or not his office will prosecute. That is clearly essential even
to the layman. It is clearl)^ a proper role.
But in the minds of many there is that problem, if it is a problem,
a problem of justice in the hands of a single individual is compounded
by the practice of plea-bargaining.
95-158— 73— pt. 3 10
1104
In effect, the guilty have two shots before he ever gets into the sys-
tem. He has the shot to which the prosecutor makes the judgment and
too, he might make a whale of a deal in plea-bargaining. That is prior
to whatever the system calls for.
So I wonder, if in your opinion, it would be easier for }^ou if there
were some more ground rules laid down for plea-bargaining and, if
so, if either of you have any suggestions as to what those specific rules
might be.
Mr. Vance. The only ones I have — and I have made somewhat of a
study of it — I think the rule that is established by the American Bar
Association, in this regard are good rules.
I think you have to go further than that. I think most of these
rules were designed to protect and bring the judge into it and get it
out on the table and protect the defendant's rights.
I think perhaps there are more standards or rules or guidelines
needed to protect the public's rights, but I think basically the ABA's
standards should be adopted.
Mr. Wiggins, before he left had asked a question of Mr. Busch, and
they put all of it in California, but we don't. We ask the defendant if
he is pleading guilty because he is guilty and absolutely no other rea-
son, and usually he says no and the lawyer jabs him in the ribs and he
gets the message that he should say yes.
That should be changed. The public should know what is going on
and any time a recommendation is being made by the State and ac-
cepted by the judge, this is something that should be subject to public
scrutiny, too.
Mr. Steiger. I want to get the one thought. I was hoping maybe one
of you would suggest it. Would it be an impossible burden if the pros-
ecutor's office, faced with multiple crime situation, more than one
specific felony which is involved in the bargain, if he would not be
permitted to dismiss any of the counts, but all of the charges must be
considered in the bargain ?
Would that be an impossible consideration?
Mr. Busch. Well, of course, as Carol stated, in their jurisdiction
they have to make separate indictments, and in ours, suppose a fel-
low wrote 14 forged checks. We would charge him with 14 counts
of forgery, whether they were $10 or $1,000.
Now, I see nothing wrong if he wants to plead guilty to forgery,
a felon3% to taking 3 counts out of the 14 and dismissing the
others. Not sentence bargaining. Forgery in our State is punishable,
possibly by 6 months to 14 years in the State prison.
We have an indeterminate sentence. You don't set the thing. But
the judge can also make it a misdemeanor and put him on probation.
I see nothing wrong with saying, "I will take three counts of forgery,
you plead guilty to a felony, we will dismiss the other counts."
What the judge does, as a way of sentence, is not make that part
of the bargain. We don't sentence bargain.
I think the abuse in the bargaining process comes when you have
14 counts of forgery and the prosecutor and defense and the judge
as just part of the plea say, "You are going to get a year in the county
jail." But that is what the people can't possibly understand. It is
difficult, as Carol indicated. We know by experience what the in-
1105
dividual will get and we want to speed justice, we want to get what
we feel is a fair sentence.
Here is a youngster, first offense, we know that is what he is going
to get. Let's take a plea. Why take the 14 counts to the jury now and
take about '2 weeks.
I would not agree you have to plead to all counts.
Mr. Steiger. I didn't mean the case was a forgery of 14 specific
cliecks. I am talking about the man who is apprehended robbing
a Circle K in January and is placed on bond pending disposition of
that matter, and robs another store in February, is apprehended and
released on bail, et cetera, in which we have four specific situations,
none of which have been dealt with.
When he has finally been apprehended, the practice here, at least,
is if you will cop out on the two robberies, we will forget the other
four.
I understand the need to get on with the business of the prosecutor's
office and the courts, but I also wonder if it wouldn't be easier on
the bargaining process — and this is an honest question; it isn't a
rhetorical question — wouldn't it be easier if the defense attorney now
going into this plea bargaining could not arbitrarily decide, if you
had a valid case, you could not dismiss felonies B, C, and D in the
bargaining process? Would that make the plea-bargaining process
itself meaningless ?
Mr. BuscH. I think so. You have taken away the bargaining process.
Mr. Vance. I guess we bargain in a different way. We would take
a plea of guilty on the four robberies committed at different times
and would not dismiss those cases unless we came up with insufficient
evidence in a particular case. But we would recommend the particular
sentence that would reflect all four of those and we would get into the
sentence part of it. Joe doesn't like sentence bargaining. I don't see
anything wrong with sentence bargaining provided the judge is made
a part of it and you have an experienced prosecutor and defense at-
torney who know what they are doing.
But I certainly would agree that we just couldn't try all of those
cases.
Now, really what happens is the person ends up with a lesser sentence
than if you did have all four of those trials. Undoubtedly you would
end up with a lesser sentence than he would expect if you went to trial
in all four cases and took up a month of the court's time.
Chairman Pepper. Mv. Winn?
Mr. WiNX. We talked about LEAA funding. One uses that and
one said you wouldn't get your share from the size of your ofHce.
Mr. BuscH. We finally have gotten some.
]\[r. WiNx. You have"^ gotten some, but it doesn't do as much in your
jurisdiction as it does in Mr. Vance's.
Mr. BusGH. That is right.
Mr. Winn. We have talked about computers. Is there coordination
through the national association where you can cornpare the programs,
or is LEAA supposed to fund in each individual jurisdiction and every-
body goes off and does what they think is the best thing ?
Do we have anything to tie into it ?
Mr. Vance. Programing of a computer is a very difficult thing and
the more I hear about it, the less I understand it. And I don't know
1106
if the fault lies with the computer people or m}- own ignorance in the
scientifxC areas.
What we do, many prosecutors have been up here and seen the
PEOMIS system that Charles Work is using and they can take those
ideas back. But every law in every State is different and the means
of prosecuting the cases, and they vary within the jurisdictions within
a particular State and about all you can do is use ideas.
But we share all of the management reports that are made. When
this group goes in and makes a management study and they need the
use of computers, and this type of thing, all of this information is
available and shared.
We have conferences on it where we send people to management
conferences and like I send one of my top administrative deputies
and I know that Joe has, and they will get deputies from 50 large
cities and have somebody talking on here is the way you can use the
computer. This is being done. So far as individual programing to be
used in all 50 States, I don't know if it is even possible and I would
have to plead ignorance.
Mr. Winn. Is NDAA doing anything about it ?
Mr. Vance. The National Center for Prosecution Management that
is setting up management studies for prosecutors is part of the National
District Attorneys Association. We have something like four of five
out of seven members on the board from the National District Attor-
neys Association, although there are outside persons on the board, like
Mr. Ernie Frieson, Avho heads the State court management center out
of Denver. This is primarily an arm of the National District Attorneys
Association that has been given this grant.
Mr. Winn. Since you brought up the point that all of the laws are
different in the country, that makes it pretty hard for you to put the
same information into the computer; and if you don't put the same
basic information into the computer then what you get out is not
going to be the same and not going to be of great benefit to you on
a national scale. Plow about your own local information based on your
local laws?
Mr. Vance. We found we couldn't even run Houston and Dallas with
the same program ; and both are in Texas under the same laws.
INIr. Winn. Then should we strive for consistency in sentencing on
a national basis ?
Mr. Vance. I don't know. This is even a problem on a statewide basis.
A jury in south Texas might think one offense is deserving of proba-
tion, whereas a jury in west Texas might want to sentence somebody
to prison for a long time. The community standards and sense of values
change from county to county. I think that provided you have the
same sense of moral values or standards and priorities, the sentencing
should be the same. In other words, I should not have any system in my
office that allows one prosecutor to recommend 10 years on a given case
and another prosecutor, because he feels less strongly on that type of
crime recommend 5 years. That would be a bad system. But I don't
consider it wrong if Texas might consider one particular offense more
seriously than Rhode Island. A person might get more time in Texas
than someone in Rhode Island for the same offense, or vice versa. I don't
see any thing wrong with that, if the people of those States have
different beliefs.
1107
Mr. Buscii. One of the things that really bothers people within the
system, the criminal justice system, is everyone within the particular
jurisdiction being- treated in the same way, the judges' sentences. In our
State it is an indeterminate sentence, you know. This Kand study, just
Los Angeles County alone, shows one judge sends 58 percent of all of
the defendants that appear before him on a felony sentence ; another
judge, only 8 percent.
Now, obviously, that is a cold statistic, but it is a bothersome one.
Here we have, either that judge is too tough, or this one is too easy ; but
we have a maximum or minimum, we don't have the optimum. We
don't know what the optimum should be ; but most certainly that isn't
right.
]Mr. Winn. So if the lawj^ers are smart they read the statistics and try
to get assigned to the lower level judge.
Mr. BuscH. Absolutely. These are the problems we have.
That is why I really feel prosecutors and court systems and criminal
justice S3'stems and through the LEAA should really be using modern
methods and techniques and putting things into computers. It can
never substitute for the human judgment involved when we are dealing
with human beings, but at least to get us to that optimum point where
we can feel confidence that there is equality of justice.
Xow, in California, possession of marihuana is a felony or a mis-
demeanor. We call it a wobbler. You can be arrested and it doesn't
matter how many cigarettes you have, it could be a felony. The policy
of my office for a first offender, up to one ounce of marihuana, which is
a lid, is handled as a misdemeanor. That is not true in San Diego
County. They will handle more than five cigarettes as a felony.
Well, that bothers me a little bit, within a State; within jurisdictions.
The man down in San Diego, he will know that is going to be a mis-
demeanor sentence, but he is still handling it at a felony level.
These are things that program and funding will help us with.
Mr. Winn. I appreciate you gentlemen appearing before the com-
mittee this morning. I think it has been very interesting and I wish we
had all day to talk to both of you because I think it enlightens the com-
mittee. But I think your testimony points out the inconsistencies the
public is no^'s• questioning of the law. I think we all agree with it; but
what do we do about it.
That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Sandman.
Mr. Sandman. You may have covered what T am going to ask you
but I am curious as to your reaction. How do you feel about the various
kinds of immunity statutes in some cases, especially in a conspiracy
case ?
Mr. BuscH. I think immunity statutes are necessary. I like the kind
of immunity statute where we can give immunity and force a witness
to testify. And although you could never use that testimony against
him, if he has committed a crime you can still prosecute him.
Mr. Sandman. Even after you give him immunity?
Mr. Buscii. Yes. I can't think of the term they call that, but they
have a technical term. The other type is you can never ]n-osecute him.
In other words, immunity is necessary where you use it for conspiracy.
Sometimes you can't get' to criminal activities unless you have people
1108
that are involved in it. So you have to give them immunity. Wliat I am
talking about is
Mr. NoLDE. "Use" immunity versus "transactional" immunity.
Mr. BuscH. Thank you.
We do not have that.
Mr. Sandmaist. You do have some type of immunity. Almost all
States have it. Take the crime of conspiracy to defraud, where you
have to have more than two j)eople involved. One is the informer and
he is given immunity against the other person.
Now, under your law in California, can you get a conviction of con-
spiracy against the other person ?
Mr. BuscH. No; we have a corroboration rule in California. An
accomplice must be corroborated. That is to say, you must connect the
testimony to the crime independent of the accomplice's testimony.
Tliat is not Federal rule.
Mr. Vance. This is true in Texas, and I think the particular rule
alleviates one big criticism. For example, if you have the goods on one
person, what does he have to gain or lose by saying he will be the key
witness to convict somebody else and his testimony doesn't have to be
corroborated. Under the Federal law you can be convicted without
corroboration.
We have the same rule as California in that you have to connect the
defendant with the crime by independent evidence. Therefore, even if
you give someone immunity to testify — and it may be very helpful and
we do need immunity statutes — we have another safeguard built in
with our corroboration rule.
Mr. Sandman. Yes ; but in the conspiracj^-type case, a coordinated
effort of more than two people to make an act. do you think it's right
for one person, who may be the instigator, which is generalh^ the case
to be given immunity and the otliers who are involved to get con-
victed, and he cannot be tried for the same thing to which he testified.
And this is true in your case, isn't it ? Both of your States ?
Mr. Btjscii. If we give immunity in our State he cannot be prosecuted
for that offense.
Again, it is prosecutorial discretion. "What is best in the interests of
the community, to have somebody be given immunity, whether it is a
murder case, multiple murder case, and not to prosecute him. He must
be punished to get to the real culprits. IMany times the only way you can
prove a case is to give immunity in an important case. But the prose-
cutor should use sound judgment and make sure you would get the
less culpable individual. Like the Manson murder case. We had people
turn State's evidence. They walked out of the courtroom. Seven mur-
derers— ^but all of them would have walked free if we didn't let one
walk free. So that is a judgment that you have to make when you give
immunity.
Conspiracy is a powerful weapon of prosecutors and I don't like to
see it abused. Personally, I believe the best way to prove that a con-
spiracy is not by circumstantial evidence but by giving immunity to one
of the conspirators to talk about the agreement and wliat was involved.
But you want to make sure you get the least culpable individual and
you are going to do substantial justice by giving that immunity.
]\Ir. Sandman. Yes; but in so many cases the fellow who is mostly
guilty is the one that is given immunity.
1109
Mr. BuscH. I would disagree witli that.
Mr. Sandmax. Isn't that so %
Mr. BuscH. No.
Mr. Sandmax. It is not so ?
Mr. Vaxce. I wouldn't agree with that. The only case I think of oc-
curred in Texas in the Federal court where I thought the kingpin got
immunity, but we have not ever had that criticism in the Statxi court
and I would never give the instigator immunity to get the lesser per-
son. I think I would let the whole case slide before I do that.
Mr. Sandman. This is a typical case. I heard this happen right in
the courtroom in my own State. Wliat happened, apparently in this
case a contractor went to a particular officeholder in the town, and it
wasn't a big town, and he really tried to bribe the man so he could
get a particular type of exception in a contract for some extra work,
apparently. As the testimony went, he did bribe, there was no question
about it. The extra work order went through, which amounted to a
sizable amount of money.
Now, the instigator of that crime, in my opinion, is the contractor,
not the guy who finally wilted to it and took a few dollai-s. Right?
Because if *^the contractor didn't go to him it would never have hap-
pened in the first place.
OK, the contractor is the one given immmiity and the other guy got
3 to 5 years. How can you justify that?
Mr. BuscH. Well, I would say that was poor judgment on the part
of the prosecutor.
Mr. Vance. If you had the contractor going to many different pub-
lic officials, I think that is very poor judgment. If it was only one
isolated incident, the instigator would not be as bad as the public
official who is held to a much higher standard.
Mr. Sandman. Couldn't that happen under your law ?
Mr. Vance. Yes, certainly. Like dismissing a case you shouldn't
dismiss.
Mr. Sandman, Yes. Should we have some sort of a regulation, some
sort of a rule where it couldn't happen? That is my question.
Mr. BuscH. That would not be an accomplice situation. There is a
bribegiver and a bribetaker, two different crimes. We don't require
that he is not an accomplice in that instance. If he testifies and is given
immunity he could be convicted on that testimony alone.
Mr. Sant)man. Should there be some sort of uniform rule to prohibit
the incidents I talked about ?
Mr. Vance. I don't know how you would administer it.
Mr. BuscH. '^Vliat you are saying is you want to prohibit the prose-
cutor's discretion to make a judgment call as to who he gives im-
mimity to.
Mr. Sandman, I believe you have to have immunity statutes. I un-
derstand it is a great tool. But should there be something where a man
who perpetrates a crime should not be given immunity ?
;Mr. Vance, You have to have approval by the judge. You have
judicial approval. Sometimes it is merely a ministerial act. But no
judge wants to put his name to something that was a gross abuse.
]\rr, Buscii. You have the witness take the stand and you ask a ques-
tion and he refuses to answer on the ground it will incriminate him;
and you petition the court for a court order to get immunity for the
1110
witness and the court passes on it. That is the way we have the proce-
dure on it. That is the way we have the procedure in California.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Busch, did I understand you to say you had
indeterminate sentences in California?
Mr. BuscH. Yes, sir. Anybody sentenced to the State prison does
not go for a set period of years on recommendation of the judge. He
is just sentenced to the State prison for the term prescribed by law.
If it is amied robbery, it is 5 years to life.
The law says "armed." Then we have an adult authority and after
the man arrives at the State prison, they determine how long he shall
spend.
Chairman Pepper. So the court adjudicates with or without the jury
that the man is guilty of a certain offense, and the law prescribes a
sentence. The judge adjudicates it, he is sent in to the custody of your
penal system?
Mr. BuscH. If he goes to the State prison. But the judge has addi-
tional discretion, lie can grant probation and not send him to the State
prison. He can suspend the State prison sentence.
Chairman Pepper. If he sends him to prison without probation, then
the penal system determines how many years he is committed ?
Mr. Buscir. Right.
Chairman Pepper. That is different from giving him an indetermi-
nate sentence to be held as long as the executive authority would like
to hold him without the law fixing some maximum. In your case, the
law fixes a maximum ; doesn't it ?
Mr. Busch. Yes. In other words, take burglary, second-degree bur-
glary. It is 1 to 14 years. Grand theft, 1 to lO" years. They have all
kinds of different types.
Chairman Pepper. What is your idea about an indeterminate sen-
tence without any legal limitations at all of the term served, leaving
it entirely up to parole authorities and executive authority to deter-
mine how long he stays?
Mr. Busch. I have no quarrel with that. I think one of the most
difficult things the criminal justice system is faced with is that a judge,
or prosecutor, or defense counsel, based on a probation report of an
intervicAV that took perhaps an hour, decides how long a person should
be incarcerated for a particular offense. Eeally, what they ought to do
is put it under an authority who can study the individual,
I have had the wardens of prisons tell me — like assault with a deadly
weapon. It is 1 to 10 in California; with good time off they can get
out in S years — they know that that individual could be one of the
most dangerous men to ever put out on the street and at a certain time
they have to put him out. But they know it. A prosecutor can't tell it
in the short time we have these individuals under our observation.
That is why I have no quarrel with letting an authority such as an
executive authority stud}^ the individual to determine how long he
sliould bo.
Chairman Pepper. I have heard the question raised as to what is the
effect of that kind of system upon the inmates, the feeling he never
knows when he will ever be able to get out. There is no legal limitation.
Mr. Busch. I imagine it would have an effect upon those that are
kept there for manv, many years, that they wouldn't partici]">ate. It is
like giving a man life without possibility of parole. You don't have a
nil
carrot in front of him. He doesn't Avant to cooperate Avitli the program.
"^Vliat you are talking about, there ^vould still always be the carrot
there, some hope for him.
Chairman pErrEii. Mr. Vance, would you care to comment on wliat
type of sentence you have in Texas ?
Mr. Vance. I am opposed to an indeterminate sentence as such. I do
think there should be a certain amount of flexibility, but we should
look at the rehabilitative aspects of any pei-son and how he docs in
prison and the whole bit. I think that is very important. But you could
take one person who has stolon all of his life and steals a tube of tooth
paste and you know he is going to be a thief all of his life ; he has been
a thief in the past. Under the indeterminate ]n-ison structure he would
probably be there the rest of his life because if released he would steal
in all probability. Somebody else commits murder and the recidivism
rate among murderers is perhaps one of the least of all crimes. Under
the rehabilitation theory, the murderer would be released. I thinlc you
have to reach some kind of balance to rehabilitate people but still keep
tlie ])unishment somehow related to the crime that has been com-
mitted. Maybe this is archaic and old fashioned but I just think people
ought to know in advance they will be punished if there is any de-
terrent to punishment. They should know if they murder somebody,
the penalty is going to be severe. This is the best way to deter murder.
I would favor laws, I guess, more like Texas has. where you have
certain formulas and flexibility but at least the time served should
! )c ba sed upon the sentence given.
Chairman Pepper. Does the judge have the law fixed as a sentence
for a cei'tain offense ?
IMr. Vance. Yes.
Chairman Pepper. And the judge can sentence within the limitation
of the law ?
Mr. Vance. Yes. Take an average case. Eobberj-, for example. Rob-
bery carries 5 years to life in Texas. Let's say a person gets 12 years
l)ecause the judge can sentence anywhere in between. If a person gets a
12-year sentence he is eligible for parole in 4 years or one-third of his
time. Actuall}', sooner than one-third considering credits. I think the
parole laws are a little too lenient. But at least a 20-year sentence is
going to keep a person there more than a 10-year sentence.
Chairman Pepper. Does your court in sentencing an individual say
maximum and minimum ?
]\Ir. Vance. Just a maximum.
Chairman Pepper. Well, one other thing, gentlemen. This correc-
tional system is a very critical part of the whole judicial process if
we are going to try and curb crime. All of the expense and effort that
you go through and all of the other people related to the court sys-
tem go through is for the purpose usually of getting them into the
penal system, into the correctional system. How adequate would you
say the correctional system is today in your respective States?
jNIr. Buscii. Well, I think that probably again there is a great focus
on the correctional system. How adequate is it in rehabilitative proc-
esses? It isn't too successful because people who earn the joint, people
that make State prison, have done something. They have been through
the probationary period, the rehabilitative process, and they are not
really amenable to it. There is a great deal of recidivism.
1112
Chairman Peppeh. "\Miat percentage of the people charged with
felonies who come through your offices and into your system are re-
peaters? Mr. Busch first.
Mr. Buscii. I would say that when you say repeaters, whether they
have prior felony convictions is one thing. But having contact with the
law, 90 percent we prosecute have had contact with the law before
being charged with a felony.
Chairman Pepper. Would you say a considerable number have also
been incarcerated on previous convictions ?
Mr. Vance. I would guess about 25 or 30 percent in our State have
been incarcerated previously.
jNIr. Buscii. Yes.
Chairman Pepper. A much larger number have been arrested or
probably been involved in the law?
Mr. Busch. That is right. About 90 percent. Criminals are criminals.
Chairman Pepper. You say a criminal is a criminal. The reason I
noted that is that to a large extent most of the crime in this country
is committed by a relatively few people.
Mr. Busch. That is true. Onlj^ 2 percent.
Chairman Pepper. If we can somehow focus attention on those
relatively few people and find something adequate or effective to do
with them we would make a very great step toward the solution of
the problem.
Mr. Busch. This is a very involved field, Mr. Chairman. I believe
in the theory of criminal law in violation of penal laws : when a person
is convicted, he should be punished. I believe in that. That is part of
our theory of punishment. That is to protect this society and to deter
other people. And third, we should try to rehabilitate them. In that
sequence we should try.
But we know people who commit crimes have a typical type of per-
sonality. They are called sociopaths. They just don't conform. How
long you keep them in custody, that is the problem. What do you do?
You have a guy and when he gets out of prison he is going to commit
some more armed robberies. How long do you keep him? These are
very involved social problems of today.
Chairman Pepper. We are going to have to go in a minute. In Cali-
fornia you are getting away from the big centralized institutions and
]')utting people more back in the county systems for incarceration;
aren't you?
]Mr. Busch. In our State we have probation subsidy programs. If
you don't send somebody to State prison, the State will give the county
$4,000 a year to put them on probation. We call it probation subsidy.
Chairman Pepper. How is that working out ?
j\Ir. Busch. Los Angeles County gets $8 million a year. I don't think
it is working out too well, personally.
Chairman Pepper. Do they have any innovative system for handling
these people who are in those probation programs ?
]\Ir. Busch. Of course, there are all kinds of programs they have
nowadays for supervision and work programs, and work projects.
I don't know if they are innovative. They are the same programs that
have always been in existence.
Chairman Pepper. ^NFr. Yance, what would you say about the correc-
tional system m Texas ?
1113
Mr. Vance. T think, despite all of our laws that need reform, Ave
have one of the best prison systems in the Nation. George Beto was
there for years and headed it. I say this based on the fact we have
one of the very lowest costs per day per prisoner. Normally this would
be a bad statistic to cite, but the reason our cost is so low is the prisoners
are self-supporting- to a large extent. They raise all of their own food
and vegetables. And they build their own buildings and they get
involved; they have a barbers college, they have all kinds of training
for them and also we have special units dealing with young offenders.
I think we probably have given more college degrees and high school
degrees to inmates, by far, than any other prison system in the country.
George Beto said, ''Teach a man the dignity of work." About 60
percent of the people in our prison system had not completed the
sixth grade. They just dropped out of school and they were sort of
drifters and they committed offenses. They had a little lower I.Q. Some
people you can't do anything with ; there is no question about it. They
will never reform but a large number never had any discipline in their
lives or anybody to take them and say, "Look, given confidence, you
can do a certain trade, you can reach a certain skill, you can make it."
I think the Texas system achieves this about as good as a prison sys-
tem can, unless you can go out and hire a thousand psychiatrists and
deal with them on a one-to-one basis, which costs would probably be
prohibitive and results speculative at best.
Chairman Peppeu. "Wliat about the appeals court? ^Ve had an early
experience in the life of this committee that — I believe Mr. Younger
is your attorney general now ?
Mr. BuscH. Yes, sir.
Chairman Pepper. He was your prosecuting attorney, the district
attorney in Los Angeles. He testified here on the frustration that he
had as a district attorney on account of the length of time involved
in appeals, the uncertainty of a case being fatal. What have you to
say about how you are affected by the dela}' in your appellate system?
Mr. Vance. Ours is horrible. We have only one appellate court for
all cases in the entire State. We are right in the middle of proposals
to completely reform the whole judicial system. I think appeals should
be handled within a 60- to 90-day period. I think if a person is sen-
tenced by a judge he should not have an absolute right to make a bail.
This should be up to the judge. In Texas they have absolute right to
make bail unless they get over 15 years. So if a person is convicted of
20 burglaries, and 12 years is the maximum, he comes in and takes
his maximum sentence and stays out another year and a half while
his case is on appeal. This is deplorable.
I think every State that hasn't done so should clean up the appel-
late process. We should be like England and process these rapidly.
Mr. BuscH. I think the greatest indictment is delay on appeal, both
Federal and State. We have a rule in our State, cases are supposed to
be decided within 00 days of being submitted to the court, but the pro-
cedural rules are so slow in getting briefs that tlie system goes on for
years.
I agree with Carol. We should have something similar to the Eng-
lish justice system. You have to decide between GO and 90 days, briefs
in, arguments in, and get it over with.
1114
Chairman Peppetj. We are goins: to have some State and Federal
appellate court judges and justices who are going to be testifying
about court-adopted innovative things to speed up their process.
Gentleman, I can't tell you how much Ave appreciate your coming
here. You are two of the most knowledgeable men in the country. You
have a deep concern with these problems and have been a very great
help. We thank you very much.
Mr. BuscH. Thank you for inviting us.
Mr. Vaistce. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Vance and Mr. Busch follow:]
Prepared Statement of Carol S. Vance, District Attorney, Harris County,
Tex.
First of all, let me introduce myself. My name is Carol Vance, and I am the
President of the National District Attorneys Association. Also. I am District
Attorney of Harris County, Texas, a jurisdiction of nearly 2,000,000 persons of
which Houston is the major city.
My purpose in being here is to discuss some of the innovations which our office
is utilizing in an effort to make our criminal justice system and our office more
effective.
A. few short years ago there was no worlcing blueprint to improve the criminal
justice system in our state and my jurisdiction. However, with the help of the
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration through our state planning agency,
the Texas Criminal Justice Council, we now have significant programs that now
are having an impact in our figlit against crime.
One reason that the Texas program has been so successful is that a large per-
centage (approximately 20% for 1973) of the funds has gone into the courts and
prosecution. Our county has been a good examijle of how these funds can be
used to combat crime on the streets, and my testimony today will concern itself
with actual programs in progress and their impact. Let me give you some spe-
cific examples.
I
COURTS
The problem of increased caseload today is known to everyone in every juris-
diction. Frankly, I don't know how we would exist without the support of our
Texas Crimiual Justice Council and the funds made possible by the Omnibus
Crime Act. These funds have enabled our courts to operate more effectively in
several different ways.
A. Speeding up trials. — One of the most exciting and productive programs is a
grant that provided for ftoo additional jail courts to try cases where the de-
fendant is confined to jail. This helps to relieve an overcrowded jail and provide
the Constitutional right to a speedy trial. Often we forget that the State, as well
as the defendant, is entitled to a speedy trial. These two courts, manned by two
visiting judges, began operation April 3, 1972. During the first nine months of
operation which ended on December 81, 1972, these two courts disposed of 1400
indictments and approximately 650 defendants. While the planned population of
our jail is 1650, with the help of these two courts, we have reduced the population
of our jail from a staggering 2200 to 1995 in this same nine month period. This
operation might well prevent the necessity of building a new jail or adding on
to present facilities. It relieves the present courts to a certain extent so that
persons on bail are brought to trial more rapidly. I am pleased to say that oiu-
present trial settings in most of our courts occur within five months after the
commission of the offense instead of over a year as was true just a sliort time
ago.
B. Court administration. — Anotlier court funded program has included the
hiring of a court administrator and a court coordinator for each of our district
covirts. These court specialists assist in the setting and programming of cases
and trials. Many lay persons have the mistaken notion a judge is only working
if he is on the bench and a jury is in the jury box. This is not true. There
are many pre-trial conferences, the mere reading of motions filed each weeli.
the consideration of lengthy writs of habeas corpus filed each day, reading
records and briefs on cases prior to appeal, not to mention in chamber con-
1115
ierences. rriur to the hiring of coordinators, judges were pre-occupied with
dockets aud the clerical burdens which are now assumed by these specialists.
C. Use of com filters. — Another separate grant has been to fund a computer
program that is now partly operational and provides the clerk, tlie sheriff, the
district attorney, and the courts with instantaneous information about all pend-
ing cases. The computer is of great assistance in keeping persons from being
lost in jail aud in providing information so docketing decisions can be made.
D. Prc-Trial release. — Another court related program funded by LEAA is the
personal recognizance program, which has also helped the crowded jail situation.
I'ersons who are not charged with the most serious types of crimes and who
are relatively stable will be eligible to be released and will not be held in jail
simply because they are too poor to afford a bond. During the first three months
of tiie program, 900 interviews were conducted by people working in the personal
recognizance program. Of these 900 people. 213 defendants were released on
their own recognizance and not required to stay in jail. Of these 213 individuals
released from custody, only 3 failed to show up for a court appearance.
This project alone accounted for release during a six-month span of 455 sus-
pects who otherwise would have been jailed. These defendants were returned
to jobs and families while their cases were pending, rather than have them
languish in jail at county expense. If the county had incarcerated each of the
4.5.J for six months, it would have cost the taxpayers $250,000. And during the
six months the releasees were able to earn an estimated $400,000 and to continue
caring for their own families.
Not only is this project credited with enhancing the respect of the suspect for
the criminal justice system, but also with increasing his rehabilitative potential
by removing him from long term jail environment prior to trial.
II
PKOSECUTION PROGRAMS
A. The Special crimes bureau. — ^The Texas Criminal Justice Council funded a
Special Crimes Bureau for our office on February 1, 1972. It is now in the
third month of its second year of operation. This specialized division of prose-
cutors devotes full time to organized criminal activity, fraudulent financial
schemes of highly complicated makeup and other criminal activity that requires
the ability of a specialist who can both investigate and prosecute. The Bureau
now consists of seven (7) lawyers and one (1) investigator. Three of these
lawyers devote full time to the investigation and prosecution of organized criminal
activity. They work hand in hand with virtually every law enforcement agency
in the area — federal, state, county, and city. It is in this division of the oflBce
that most often the "total picture" is obtained on a given person or group of
persons' criminal activity.
This is because the lawyers assigned to the division are trusted by the agencies
in the community and are able to coordinate the activities of the various agencies
for the mutual benefit of all. They have become known as a more or less central
area where all sorts of intelligence data is put together from the many contribut-
ing agencies. In the first year of their operation, they opened over 250 files on
persons, groups, associations and corporations suspected of some organized
criminal activity. These opened files resulted in the return of 218 indictments by
Harris County Grand Juries, resulted in 33 convictions and 5 civil injunctive pro-
ceedings initiated in the District Courts. At the beginning of this second year,
the Special Crimes Bureau had 110 investigations pending and since the begin-
ning of the year have opened an additional 49 files.
Just last week, for example, the prosecutors in the Bureau worked with the
Houston Police Department in an investigation that resulted in the indictment
of two (2) Houston Police Narcotic OflBcers for the sale of narcotics; opened
up a file and began the investigation with the Grand Jury of what will probably
turn out to be one of the largest auto theft rings in the Harris County area for
this year ; received information on an extortion plot involving a narcotics activ-
ity from the border and at this time are assisting State Intelligence ofiicers in
their pursuance of that matter ; were able to obtain sealed indictments on three
persons involved in a conspiracy to murder a prominent Houston doctor; in-
vestigated and arrested one individual who has in the past been, dubbed as
the "financial wizard of the Mafia" in one other particular area of the country
and who had been in Houston only a few months. This man has already de-
1116
frauded a Houston bank out of $50,000 based on a pledge of nonexistent
securities — the man has been arrested, cliarged and indicted at the time of
these remarks.
There is no question but for the Criminal Justice Council grant I would not
have been able to spare the talents and resources of these lawyers on a full time
basis for such investigations. Prior to the creation of the Bureau and the fund-
ing by the CJC, it was all I could do to keep an adequate staff to man the courts
and their extremely heavy dockets and case loads. When our Organized Crime
Division was evaluated externally by other people in the law enforcement field,
they seemed most astounded at the rapid success and achievements of the newly
created bureau. More particularly, the evaluators from the Criminal Justice
Council and from other law enforcement agencies were astounded at the amount
of cooperation between law enforcement agencies that the lawyers in the bureau
had helped accomplish.
Unfortunately, certain matters came to our attention concerning our local fire
department. This is a fire department of over 2.000 employees and those suspected
of criminal activity were from the very top of the department. It took the
resources and efforts of two assistant district attorneys from the bureau almost
tliree full months to conclude the investigation which comes to an end this week.
This investigation has caused virtually hundreds of man hours to be spent by
the attorneys involved in same and has resulted in the return of indictments
for conspiracy, bribery, theft and embezzlement.
The Special Crimes Bureau, which includes the Organized Crime Division, is
pei'haps the most important section of our entire oflSce. This permits our resources
to be used to go after the professional criminals, the public corruptors, the
masterminds — in other words those who need it most — the biggest fish.
B. Student assistants. — Another innovation of our otfice funded by LEAA is
our Intern Program. Houston has three law schools. The program provides for
hiring six top quality senior law students on a half time basis. Under Texas law,
senior law students can appear in court with a licensed attorney. Typical of these
students is one who recently turned down the opportunity to become editor of
his school's Law Review to become an intern. They are assigned to different
divisions of the oflSce and do substantial work. More important than the work
is the chance to recruit the most outstanding students. Not only are these students
pleased to become Assistant District Attorneys, but they generate interest with
other top quality students. This causes two excellent results. First, we have
over 200 applicants at present. Secondly, the entire attitudes of the law schools
toward prosecution has changed for the better. In addition to our six regular
students, we have 2.5 to 40 law students working in and around the oflSce and
receiving credit houi'S.
C. Improved management. — Our oflfice consists of some 90 lawyers and approxi-
mately 170 personnel total. Our budget is close to 2.5 million dollars and in
reality more like 3 million dollars per annum considering various grants. I
suppose we are typical of many District Attorneys' offices where the District
Attorney was chosen on the basis of his ability as a lawyer and gets into bis first
big administrative responsibility as the prosecutor.
To update the organization of our office and provide for the best management
team possible, through LEAA funding our office received a management study
grant. This study was conducted for nearly a period of one year by Peat, Marwick
and Mitchell. As a result of the management study, our office was able to make
major changes in the organization of jxersonnel and the utilization of everyone —
particularly our professional talent.
As a part of the management study, we implemented programs for modernized
reporting systems, filing systems, communication equipment, programs and
publications, community and school projects in crime prevention, and in many
other areas . For example, we hired an office manager for the first time so that
the District Attorney and First Assistant would not be spending time on hiring
of secretarial and other clerical personnel and the assignment of their posi-
tions. We instituted a program and publications manager to systematize the
various printed material from this office. A new reporting system gives us needed
information concerning the workload of each prosecutor in each court as well
as a gr-eater breakdown on types of cases filed, time between arrest, indictment,
and trial, and other needed information.
Today, a discretionary grant has been provided the National Center of Prose-
cutor Management, located in Washington. D.C., and this Center provides man-
agement services as well as seminars on office management for district attorneys
1117
throughoiit the country. Management of the District Attorney's Office on a
.systematized basis is a relatively new creature. Every office should take ad-
vantage of these opportunities. We could not have undergone this reorganization
and better utilization of our personnel without a management study. The report,
that was made available, has been furnished to many other District Attorneys'
offices throughout the country.
D. Screening of all serious criminal charges. — When a case is filed in our
Federal system, the charge is first approved by an Assistant United States At-
torney. This is standard procedure throughout the United States. Yet in most
prosecutors" otfiees in this country, there is no screening of cases. Where there
is no screening, often police departments, citizens, and others file charges with
local magistrates sometimes where there is sufficient evidence to sustain a
conviction.
In order to alleviate this situation in Houston and Harris County, pursuant to
an LEAA grant, our office received funds for new equipment and personnel to
manage a screening division. This now means that when a law enforcement
officer gets ready to file a charge, he first brings it to an Assistant District At-
torney and brieily outlines the case. If there are sufficient facts, the Assistant
naturally approves the charge and begins building his file and assuming re-
sponsibility fur the case.
This screening division is operated 7 days a week and until 3 :00 a.m. on week-
ends and 2 :00 a.m. on other nights. Not only are charges screened here, but the
experienced personnel that rotate through this division also give needed advice
on warrants of arrest, search warrants, and other highly technical legal prob-
lems confronting the officer on the beat and the detective at odd and strange
hours.
This system has a way of discouraging officers from filing charges unless there
is sufficient evidence. It also provides better communication between prosecu-
tors and police and lets the prosecutor understand the vast and intricate prob-
lems of the police officer on the street. Where there is a further investigation to
be done, the Assistant on duty can advise the officer to obtain such while it is
fresh. This often saves a case that would otherwise die because of the passage
of time before the trial assistant would receive the file in the ordinary course of
events.
As a result of this system, there is a great saving to the City of Houston. Such
action has substantially decreased the number of hours spent in preliminary
hearings by officers involved. Houston Mayor Louie Welch noted a $420,000 an-
nual saving merely by reducing the time Houston police officers spend giving
testimony. Since its institution November 1, 1972, a total of 11,879 misdemeanors
and felonies have been filed out of the 12,268 cases which have been screened.
In other words 389 cases have not further clogged our criminal justice system
because of this program.
E. Regional offices and speeding up indictments. — Our office has beefed up oiir
new Grand .Jury Division to better accommodate our twenty-two police depart-
ments. Through a grant we have instituted three regional offices whereby prose-
cutors cover certain geographical areas of the county. This saves police officers
and the public up to a 60-mile round trip to the courthouse. Due to increased
manpower, the length of time from arrest to indictment has been cut from four
months to 20 to 30 days. The three Assistant District Attorneys assigned to the
regional areas ai-e also available to give advice to departments in these areas.
The additional manpower allowed us to catch up on our backlog of ca.«es pending
grand jury indictment, which is a necessity in the State of Texas. We hope to
have this time down to 1.5 to 20 days in the near future in accordance with
nationally recommended standards.
F. Assistance on the State level. — Texas was the second state in the nation
to hire an Executive Director, or as they are called in some states. Training
Coordinators. Although the position of Executive Director was created less than
three years ago with the help of LEAA funds, approximately thirty five states
now have such an office. The Executive Director in Texas has turned our State
Prosecutors Association from a twice a year social club to a viable, hard work-
ing organization which meets the needs of the prosecutors of Texas. Further,
he conducts prosecutor training programs and sends prosecutors to regional
training seminars across the country. Each state prosecutors' association needs
its own Executive Director to .speak for the state's local prosecutors l>efore the
legislatures and other bodies where it is necessary for the prosecutor to be
heard.
1118
One of the best efforts in recent years to the entire criminal justice system
In Texas was the effort of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association
in writing a Penal Code. The Texas Penal Code is over 100 years of age and
extremely out of date. The Texas Prosecutors Association drafted a Code that
was so effective that over 95% of their recommendations were approved and
incorporated into a proposal by the State Bar of Texas now pending legislative
action. We hope for favorable action within the next two weeks on passing a
new Penal Code for Texas. The quality of this Penal Code would not have been
possible had it not been for a central office to coordinate these meetings, publish
the material, and do a substantial portion of the research to accomplish these
goals. Every .state needs executive offices for their prosecutors. Such has been
recommended by the National Council on Criminal Justice, the American Bar
Association, and the National District Attorneys Association. The smaller pros-
ecutors' offices stand to gain the most from a central office that can provide
legal advice, monthly bulletins on changes in the law, and other central services.
Ill
CONCLUSION
We have instituted many other fine programs in Harris County and in Texas.
For example, our local probation department received a grant from the LEAA
which allowed them to double their staff. This grant permitted the hiring of
some 45 new probation officers, thereby providing people on probation with better
supervision. The probation department is now better able to effectively coimsel
with and give guidance to persons convicted of crimes and who are thought
by the public and the courts to have an opportunity to make decent citizens of
themselves.
This same grant ha.s provided federal funds for the establishment of a com-
munity services program. This program refers individuals to Alcohol Anonymous
groups, narcotic rehabilitation centers, etc. This allows individual probation
officers and their assistants to spend more time in counseling and directing the
future of worthy individuals.
In this era, when we find that the criminal elements of this country are con-
stantly upgrading and refining their criminal techniques in order to make them-
selves more elusive to law enforcement, we must take the initiative and maintain
the same pace.
Every day in courthouses across this country we hear the same question from
a criminal's victim and all people concerned with law enforcement. The cry calls
out, "Why don't they do something? Streets aren't safe to walk on anymore!"
If we ignore this plea, we can never ask this question ourselves because we had
the chance to do something and failed.
Whereas several years ago there were few new programs to combat crime on
the local level, today, with LEAA funding and new innovations, crime reduction
can become a reality. I recommend we keep the basic structure of the Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration as it is. The states need planning coun-
cils to give direction to proper funding and evaluation, so that the courts and
prosecution will not be neglected as they are in many of our states. It does little
good to provide more police to arrest more offenders if our courts are jammed
and the people's lawyer is inexperienced with far more cases than anyone could
reasonably handle. The courts and prosecution need resources and expertise
and quality personnel to assume such a tremendous and sensitive responsibility.
The National District Attorneys Association has recently asked that 15% of the
total funds be earmarked for prosecutors. From my experience with the Texas
program. I concur.
It is time we beefed up our courts, our prosecutors' offices and related serv-
ices if we are to have an effective and well balanced program to reduce the
incidence of crime on our streets.
Prepaked Statement of Joseph P. Busch, District Attorney, Los Angeles
County, Calif.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, it is an honor to come before you
today to discuss certain processes of justice in Los Angeles County which hope-
fully will be of interest to you and which may be adaptable to other areas of
the country.
1119
You have expressed interest in the application of law in our state relative
to time limits on bringing criminals to trial.
Our 60-day limitation in California is a concept which I enthusiastically sup-
port and which does not cause major inconvenience in the trial of criminal
cases.
The new Rand Corporation study of criminal felony prosecution in Los Angeles
County shows that about half the felony cases are concluded within 60 days
and the overwhelming majority (80 percent) are concluded within 90 days.
As a matter of practice, most of those cases which continue beyond the time
limit involve motions by the defense and continuances requested by the defense.
It is the policy of the District Attorney's Office normally to oppose excessive
continuances. It is, of course, usually to the advantage of the prosecution to
bring a case to trial as soon as possible, while the incident is still fresh in the
minds of the victims and witnesses.
At the present time, we are attempting to achieve state legislation which will
combine pretrial motions into an omnibus hearing and further speed the proc-
esses of justice.
Statistics on the number of cases which are dismissed as a result of the 60-day
rule are not available. However, I can assure you that no important cases are
lost because of this time limitation. And, it only operates to the benefit of the
system.
It increases respect for the law. It protects rights of defendants.
I should also note that the California Supreme Court has held that state and
federal constitutional provisions for speedy trials are self-executing and do not
depend upon statutory schemes. Defendants are not limited to rights enumerated
in statutes.
I should also note that the prosecution may refile a case which has been dis-
missed for lack of speedy trial, subject only to the statute of limitations for the
particular crime.
The Committee also indicated interest in diversionary programs which may
exist in California.
Under new state legislation (California Senate Bill 714), we began in March
a new program of narcotics defendant diversion. This program provides for the
diversion of persons arrested on narcotics violations who have no prior records
and were not involved in a crime of violence at the time of arrest. Under this
program, criminal proceedings are suspended and the defendant is diverted
to a rehabilitation program.
If the person fails to respond to rehabilitation, criminal charges may be rein-
stated. Successful completion of an assigned rehabilitation program will result
in dismissal of criminal charges.
At this time we cannot evaluate the success of the program. It has only been
in operation since March and there are still many aspects of its practical opera-
tion which have not been resolved : for example, the question of whether a
narcotics case may be diverted without the consent of the District Attorney.
The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office has also begun a pilot program on
juvenile diversion involving youngsters who have had their first contact with
the law. This program relies on volunteers to develop a one-to-one relationship
with the youngsters.
It is patterned after similar successful programs in other parts of the nation.
The response to the program has been splendid. We have volunteers of all ages
and backgrounds. The police have given us great encouragement.
The program differs from probation efforts in that it attempts to divert young-
sters before they get into the system — not afterward.
We will receive our first complete report on the program's operation in June.
From my initial experience, I believe that it offers great potential for all areas
of the country. It not only acts directly against juvenile delinquency, but also
provides a creative outlet for talented and dedicated citizens who want to do
something for the community in which they live.
I am also very proud of a program we have operating in the Watts area of
Los Angeles. A District Attorney's Youth Advisory Board is composed of stu-
dents from this predominantly black area. These students are paid to develop
programs which will create sympathy, understanding, and respect for the law
among the youths of the community. They sponsor rap sessions. They bring mem-
bers of criminal justice agencies, and even convicts, to high school campuses to
spend time talking to students.
They have developed programs to work with gang leaders, including weekend
camps where the District Attorney's Youth Advisory members spend two days
95-158—73 — pt. 3 11
1120
trying to cut through the gang psychology and rechannel the thinking of gang
leaders.
In Los Angeles, at the present time, we are facing an unusual resurgence of
gang activity and an appalling growth in juvenile violence.
At the same time that the District Attorney's OflBce is working on the streets,
we are taking steps in juvenile court to deal with this problem. Cases involving
gang leaders are flagged and special attention is given to them. I have completely
halted plea-bargaining in juvenile court. I don't believe that youngsters in trouble
with the law are helped by the sight of lawyers and juvenile court judges making
deals on cases.
We are taking steps in the state legislature to clarify the role of the District
Attorney in juvenile court. I don't think California is unique in the fact that its
juvenile laws have not kept pace with the new policies set down in court deci-
sions. We are now faced with an adversary proceeding in which the defense
counsel has virtually every legal tool available in adult court and the role of the
prosecution is really undefined.
This is a most serious problem.
Probably the most startling recent development in criminal justice in Los
Angeles County was the release last week of a year-long report by the Raud
Coriioration on felony prosecutions in the county.
I consider this report a milestone study in criminal justice and one which
should receive the attention of leaders in criminal justice throughout the nation.
I commissioned the study shortly after I became District Attorney. It is a de-
tailed statistical analysis of all aspects of felony prosecution from arrest to
sentencing. And, it revealed that we do not have equal justice in Los Angeles
County.
I wish to discuss the report with you because I believe that the method used
in this study has wide, national applications.
First, let me explain that we have the largest local prosecuting ofBce in the
nation. There are 450 lawyers in the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office
operating out of 23 separate ofiices. The Rand study concentrated on the eight
offices which handle felony prosecutions.
The Rand study showed that a robber, for example, might get probation or a
prison sentence depending on what area of the county he was arrested in and
went to trial in. We have approximately 50 police departments in our county
and their policies differ. Rejection rates of various departments' cases range
from 59 percent to 25 percent.
Among the oflSces of the District Attorney, conviction rates may vary by 10
percent, and the use of certain procedures may vary even more than that — one
ofiice had three times as many jury trials as another office, for example.
The study also revealed major differences in judges' sentencing policies, with
a range of prison sentences in the downtown court from seven percent to 57
percent, for example.
I am not proud of the disparities in justice in Los Angeles County. But, I am
proud that we are the county that conducted the study which revealed these
disparities. I am proud that we now have the type of information which will
allow us to correct these disparities.
The report also shattered some myths concerning criminal jiistice in our
county. It showed that blacks are the racial group treated most leniently in
the criminal process, both in terms of acquittals and in terms of sentences.
Mexican-Americans are next in line. And, the defendants who are convicted most
frequently and receive the most felony sentences are Anglo-Americans.
In terms of attorneys, the report showed that court-appointed attorneys obtain
the highest rate of acquittals and public defenders are most successful in obtain-
ing lighter sentences for their clients.
It is my hope that this study will lead to serious self-examination by all
agencies involved in criminal justice in my county. Since the thrust of the
report was directed at my office and disparities existing in the District Attorney's
procedures, I am already deeply involved in making major changes in prosecu-
tion practices.
In addition to pilot programs dealing with sentence bargaining and other
prosecution practices, we have obtained a federal grant for a computer-based
information system patterned after the PROMIS system which is being used by
the prosecutor here in Washington.
1121
The findings of the Rand report clearly underlined the need for such a systenn
if we are to end inconsistencies in justice in our county.
This information system will assure : ■
— uniformity of office policies ;
— consistency of prosecution among various offices ;
— measurement and evaluation of performance ;
— and, in effect, obtain monthly Rand reports on justice in Los Angeles County,
I believe that our oxperience in this regard and the changes which we are-
undertaking to remedy disparities in justice nuist be studied by all criminal
justice agencies.
The federal government should take note of what we are doing in examining
the functioning of the federal justice system. I know that organizational timidity,
bureaucratic inertia, and organizational self-protection militate against the
type of report which we had Rand do. But it is essential that such reiK>rts be-
done.
The demands on criminal justice and the need to reassure the public that
the system can function equally and effectively make such studies a neeessity.-
I am delighted with the ojiportunity to appear here today to call the report
to your attention and to discuss the aspects of justice in Los Angeles in which,
you liave expressed particular interest.
Thank you.
[Wliereupon, at 12 :35 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at;
2 p.m.]
Afternoon Session
Chairman Pp:pper. The committee will come to order.
]Mr. Counsel, would you call the witness and proceed,
]Mr. XoLDE. Thank you. ]\Ir. Chairman.
We have with us today, Judge Joseph Weis, Jr. He has been a dis-
tinguished member of the bar and practiced law for 18 years; was:
appointed a trial judge of the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny
County in 1968; in 1970 he was appointed to the U.S. district court;
in 1973 he was appointed a U.S. court of appeals judge. Judge Weis-
has had very extensive experience in the law and he is also in charge
of a ])ilot program at the Federal Judicial Center for the use of
video tape.
We are very honored to have you today, Judge, and will be pleased
to hear your remarks.
Chairman Pepper. Judge, we appreciate your coming. As you know,
what we are trying to find out is what can be done to improve our
system for the administration of justice, particularly in criminal law
in this country. What we have been doing is looking all over the coun-
try for the most innovative and progressive programs and procedures
that would make for the more effective administration of our judicial
system and we hope would have the effect of reducing and curbing
crime in the coimtry.
We heard from the police departments of 18 cities of the countrj-;
we heard from outstanding authorities in the country in the field of'
juvenile crime and correctional institutions. This we«k we are hearing
from innovative prosecutors, trial and appellate courts, to learn what
they are doing that does make for a more efficient system in tlie ad-
ministration of justice and has the effect of curbing crime in the
country.
We are very honored to have you with your splendid background to
come and give us 3'our counsel today.
1122
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH WEIS, JE., JUDGE, U.S. COUET OF
APPEALS, THIED CIECUIT, PITTSBUEGH, PA.
Judge Weis. Thank you very much.
I have been interested in expediting trials, too, both during my
career as a trial lawyer and then as a trial judge in both the State and
Federal courts. Of course, one of the big problems always is the absent
witness, or the man that can't get there at the time you need him.
Lawyers have been reluctant to use depositions in civil cases and in
criminal cases even more so, mostly because you don't get the flavor
of the witness' personality, the innuendoes, the inferences, the em-
phasis or lack of it, from the printed record. Consequently, we have
had to rely on the face-to-face and getting everybody in the court-
room : style trial.
The video tape, I think, has made a change in this picture, and I
think it is worth using in the criminal proceedings. As you laiow by
now, I am sure, Mr. Pepper, the video tape is simply an inexpensive
and simple way of recreating somid as well as the picture of what
occurred. Therefore, the old objection that you couldn't see the witness
to judge his credibility no longer applies.
I have had the opportunity to sit in on one civil case, where we used
video tape on one occasion, and did not use it on another. I was truly
impressed by the difference between the presentation of the printed
record and that of the picture.
As you are well aware, the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970
provides, for the first time, to my knowledge, that depositions may be
taken by the prosecution. Up to that time it had been available only
at the instance of the defendant. The case of United States versus
Singleton , which is shown in the notes which I filed, indicates that the
court of appeals, at least for the second circuit, has approved
this procedure. But the dissenting opinion of Judge Oakes in that
case points out the problems that have traditionally been raised in
connection with depositions, that the witness couldn't be seen by the
jury, that the opportunity for cross examination and reaction, there-
fore, was limited.
Video tape, I think, answers a great many of these objections.
I have also indicated in the notes of my testimony here that the
use of video tape in criminal proceedings to my knowledge has been
rather limited at this point. You heard from some police officers and
I hope, perhaps, they mentioned to you that at least in Denver they
have used video tape rather extensively in drunk driving cases. To my
knowledge, it has been used in the West in connection with the con-
fession of a defendant in a murder case. It has been used by a U.S.
judge in California, in dealing with the problem of the material
witnesses particularly in the immigration cases. They have had to re-
main in jail for months at a time. Now a magistrate will have a hearing,
take the testimony of these witnesses on video tape and then excuse
them and let them go on about their business.
The most startling case that I can think of in the use of video tape
occurred in California just a few months ago when, at the trial, the
prosecution showed on video tape the deposition of a witness in a
murder case. At the time of the trial he was dead. His testimony had
been taken by video tape in November of 1972. He was in the hospital
1123
in Florida at that time with terminal cancer. His vocal cords had been
removed and he was unable to speak, so the video tape deposition was
taken with a lipreader present on the screen interpreting- what the
witness" words were which he was forming with his mouth. This case
resulted in a conviction. There has been no appeal yet, so we don't
know, of course, what is going to happen to it. But it certainly is a
dramatic example of how video tape can be important in a criminal
proceeding.
I was noticing in a newspaper just the other day, the complaint of a
prosecuting witness in a case that he had been required to come to the
courthouse five or six times before the trial finally proceeded. I think
we impose on our witnesses too much in criminal proceedings. We don't
show them enough consideration. If that man's testimony could have
been taken bv video tape, he would have been spared all of that trouble
and justice would have been done, I am sure, just as well.
I would like to mention, too, just briefly, that I forsee in the very
near future the use of the picture phone, or closed circuit television,
in the courtroom, also. I had an occasion to call a case for trial about 2
months ago. I believe it was a narcotics case. In any event, it involved
the testimony of an expert retained by the FBI at its offices here in the
District of Columbia. When we were ready to go ahead with the case
we found that the expert was not available, he was testifying in an-
other city in another part of the country, and therefore, we had to put
ours off. Consequently, more delay.
"V^Tien we get to the point where the picture phone is available, we
will simply be able to have that witness testify, remaining in his home
city and have him appear on the picture phone. The companies now
have a screen at least 13 inches wide which can be used for this and I
understand the screen is being enlarged even beyond that. So the wit-
nesses can be seen in the courtroom, the defendants can be there, the
jury can be there, and they will question this man hundreds or thou-
sands of miles away, let his picture be on the screen, and he can see what
is going on in the courtroom.
Instead of traveling all around the country these experts can testify
in four or five cities in the same day. Again, this type of testimony
shouldn't be objectionable because there is no emotion involved in it,
there is no element of revenge on the part of the prosecuting witness.
He is simply describing factual material.
The only objection that I have heard up to this point with the use
of the deposition or even the video tape is the constitutional doctrine of
confrontation. Originally, I had thought that the doctrine would be
limited perhaps to ha\dng the defendant present at the time the wit-
ness was being interrogated, with the opportunity to cross-examination
through his counsel. There have been some decisions, however, which
go a little farther than that and say not only must these defendants be
present, but the jury also. You can see that this poses some problems. I
would say that that is not absolute, however, because we do have cases
on the books where if the witness were not available, then his deposi-
tion testimony could be accepted.
So I suppose we have to go through the process of case-by-case
basis, fact-by-fact basis, where we have to find out if the video taped
deposition of the witness will be considered so far superior by the
courts to the ordinary stenographically reported type of transcription,
1124
,tliat we can say that the defendant is being properly^ protected and be-
ing given his rights, if the witness is visible to the jury, even though
heniay not be in the courtroom at the time the testimony occurs.
Chairman Peppek. Excuse me, Judge. You mentioned, awhile ago
about the picture telephone, which I understood would give the right
of questioning to that individvial from the courtroom.
Judge Weis. Yes.
Chairman Pepper. Now, does the video tape do the same thing?
Judge Weis. The video tape is simply a preservation of an event
-which occurred before.
Chairman Pepper. That is what I thought. You wouldn't have an
opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the manner in which
you could do it if it were picture telephone ?
Judge Weis. That is correct.
Chairman Pepper. But what you might do is let the deposition be
on video tape so you have both sides represented and question.
Judge Weis. That is right. We take a picture showing the presence
of both attorneys and, of course, in a criminal case we would show
the defendant being present also, and then the questioning proceeds.
It is still not as good as having every witness in the courtroom for
the trial. There is no getting away from that. Because, of course, there
might be something come up during the trial that would make the
defense attorney want to take a little different tack in cross-examining
the witness. It has also been said, you really shouldn't force a deposi-
tion on a defendant because the lawyer may not be adequately pre-
pared to cross-examine at that stage of the proceeding. With a few
<;ritical witnesses, perhap)s that is true, but the run-of-the-mill witnesses
presenting what I call neutral data, that isn't really a valid objection.
There is one other area where I think that video tape might be
handy and that is preserving the testimony of a witness in an orga-
nized crime case where there is some genuine fear that there might
1)6 harm to him before the case is called. You can see that if his testi-
mony is "in the can" as we call it, on the tape, there is really no mo-
tive for the defendant anymore to try to do him in, because if the
witness is not available in person, he is going to be available in the
tape.
There is one other feature, too, of the use of the video camera —
this is really closed circuit television rather than taping itself — would
be in the case of a disruptive defendant in the courtroom. We can
have him sitting outside where he can see what is going on, hear what
is going on, and really not have an "in absentia" trial, which we
really don't like in America, for good reason.
So I think these technological developments are on the way and they
are going to be useful before too long.
Cliairman Pepper. Have you considered the use of video tape for
making a record for consideration by the appellate court ?
Judge Weis. Yes ; that is the third area in which there is a great
deal of experimentation going on, mostly, I must say in the State
-courts ill Michigan and Illinois. They have devised a system on hav-
ing one or two cameras placed in inconspicuous places in the room,
•recording the trial itself. You can see what a great help it would be to
nn appellate court to view the judge giving the charge; for example,
if there is a claim he was being unfair or biased and used misleading
1125
inflections or emphasized the wrong points. This would be a quick
check.
I think that probably the State courts are going to lead us in that
field. We haven't done too much work with that in the Federal Judicial
Center yet, but I hope it will be before long.
There is one other field, too. Every criminal case nowadays seems to
require that there be a hearing before trial on whether the confession
given by the defendant was voluntary or not. The Jackson versus
Denno type hearing we have, where the trial judge is given a sheet of
paper, usually typed out by the policeman, by the hunt and peck, one
finger method, then signed at the end by the defendant and notarized.
Chairman Pepper. Judge, if you will excuse me. Yfe just heard two
bells. That is a vote on the floor. We would like to run over and vote
and we will be right back. We are sorry to disrupt you.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
Proceed, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. NoLDE. Would you please continue. Judge Weis.
Judge Weis. I believe we were talking about the problems of the
Jackson versus Denno hearing. That is where the trial judge usually
has a preliminary hearing to determine if the confession is voluntary.
Up to now, all I have had to deal with are the typed out question and
answer statements to which the witness swears after it is finished. The
witness comes into court and he will tell you that he was drugged, that
he had been beaten, that he was tired, he didn't know what he was
saying, that he didn't understand the question. And you have nothing
really to guide you except what he says and the policeman says. It is a
one against one credibility test. It is a difficult position for a conscien-
tious trial judge to be placed in because, who knows, who is going to
guess right or wrong, and we are always afraid of making a mistake.
If this confession or admission were reduced to video tape the judge
would have not only the advantage of what was said, but he would hear
the questions being put to the witness, he could see how he responds,
and he would have an opportunity to make some judgment on whether
the story he is hearing in court is true or false.
I think, too, that if the video tape of these confessions were made
available to the defense counsel, in a great many cases we wouldn't
even have a motion presented because he would concede the objections
weren't valid. On the other side of the coin, too, if the prosecuting at-
torney were convinced from looking at the video tape that the defend-
ant had been imposed on I would think he would probably withdraw
the prosecution.
So again, this would be a help to really determine justice and
assist it.
We have a video tape here of a confession of a defendant that I think
might give you some idea of what I am talking about. Ordinarily we
have our video tapes taken by one of the deputy clerks in our court.
These fellows are not professional photographers, they are amateurs,
but they become pretty skilled after awhile and turn out, I think, a
pretty good quality picture and sound.
But m this one it shows that people are a little bit farther back from
the camera than we like, and tlic ]:)icturp could be a little bit sharper,
but that is just a question of technique. If the policeman who was run-
1126
ning the camera had a little more experience we would get a first-class
picture. So I don't want you to think this is the best that can be used
with the best equipment on the market.
Mr. NoLDE. Before you show the case, I would like you to address
yourself to the general issue of appellate delay being caused by send-
ing up the record. By the time it is actually transcribed by the reporter
and printed and gets up to the court, as I understand, it is months
and months and sometimes years go by. Would you address that?
Judge Weis. This is, of course, a real problem we have. Now that I
am sitting on the appellate bench, I can see how it works. The appeal
is filed and the attorney could really start working on his brief and
have it prepared within, srj a month at the outside, if the record were
available on the day the appeal was docketed. But the reporters are
jammed up, they are backed up. and it takes them weeks at the very
least, and most likely months before they can get around getting this
transcript out. Because there are others waiting for them to do that.
One of the advantages of video tape — and I think it will be helpful
in the appellate process — is that the minute the hearing or trial is over
that record is prepared. There is nothing further to be done with that
record. The following day you could argue your case in an appellate
court and show back the appropriate phase of the trial on video tape.
Again, practically though, I don't know that the appellate courts
are going to take the time to sit through the ])laying of a tape of a trial.
I think they are going to insist that appropriate parts be transcribed.
But you can see that this is a tremendous saving in not requiring that
the whole transcript be prepared and just printing perhaps the testi-
mony of parts of one witness' story, or the trial judge's charge to
the jury, something of that nature. And in appropriate circumstances,
as I say, if a critical witness' credibility is at the heart of the appeal. I
would think that the appellate judges would like to see that video tape.
But I would say the shortening of the time required to file a record
in an appeal of the proceedings can reduce the appeal time by months.
And as I mentioned to you. Mr. Nolde. during our little recess
in the third circuit we have started the practice of entering judgment
orders on the day that the case is argued. When we find that there are
no complicated legal issues involved and no precedential issue to be
obtained by writing an opinion in that case, again we have taken 2
months off the process and the case is now ready for final disposition.
Mr. NoLDE. In other words, in those cases the court issued the deci-
sion on the same day oral argument was made ?
Judge Weis. That is correct. I believe the second circuit issues
them directly from the bench at the conclusion of arguments.
Mr. NoLDE. That would be comparable to the British system.
Judge Weis. Yes. Of course, in the British system, they don't have
the complicated preparation of briefs or records that we have and
I must confess. I am a little baffled how they can do that, unless they
devote a great deal of time to the arguments to develop all of the facts
in the case, because if the appellate judges are completely unfamiliar
with the background of the case it is pretty difficult to rule on a legal
point.
Chairman Pepper. They don't require transcript of records or briefs.
Judge Weis. I understand they do not.
Chairman Pepper. I heard cases argued before the British Court of
Appeals.
1127
Judge Weis. Their arguments are quite a bit longer tlian ours. They
will go on for seveial hours or por!inps a day, whereas we would limit
the argument perhaps to 15 minutes a side. Of course, witli the written
briefs we ha\'e we shouldn't have to listen to too nuicli oral argument.
Mr. XoLDE. ^^^lat is youi* view on the absolute necessity of having
written briefs ? Would it be feasible to eliminate them as a generality
m most crnniiud cases, except as nMpured by the court ^
Judge Wkis. I think in selected cases that could be done. But again,
Ave luu-e a practical problem that perhaps is not generally recognized.
Most of the criminal defendants in Federal court, at least, are repre-
sented by court-appointed counsel. We have been getting an increas-
ing number of suits filed by the prisoners after the conviction, against
their counsel, claimino- that they were inadequately represented and
asking for damages. Xow, you can see that in order to protect himself
from a suit, plus his own feeling of doing a conscientious job as an ad-
vocate, an attorney has an added incentive, in fact, almost a necessity
to file every passible type of motion that the defendant can think up
j'ftei'ward and talce every possible step to make sui-e his cases are cited
and considered by the appellate court, or he is subject to criticism later
on.
We have to modify this process somewhat.
Mr. XoLDE. As a practical matter, couldn't the court really best
have a one- or two-page recitation of the case precedents, a short state-
ment of the issues and a statement of error that would be an adequat<3
basis on which to decide the case ?
Judge Weis. I think so, yes. I think we can shorten our briefs.
Mr. XoLDE. And 1 take it the briefing process is quite a lengthy and
time-consuming process in itself ?
Judge Weis. Yes, it does take time. Of course, the research that goes
into tlie briefing takes even longer and I don't know whether we can
shortcut that, too, and still have the advocate do a competent job.
But again, if the argument on the appeal is held not too long after
the trial concludes, it is fresh in the lawyer's mind, and he will have
done a great deal of research and preparation for the trial itself.
Mr. XoLDE. And if you gave sufficient emphasis to the oral argument,
presumably the lawyers would be prepared. And if they had 2 or 3
hours of oral argument, they could deal with the issues in the case ade-
quately rather than goiiig through this tremendous briefing process.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me. Judge. I might say we had a letter
from an old friend of mine, Chief Judge Brown of the fifth circuit,
and he was telling us how they had been able to reduce, I think he said
by 60 or (15 percent the number of oral argimients, which has expe-
dited the tlisposition of the case.
Judge Weis. Yes. We followed that procedure in the third circuit,
too, j\Ir. Pepper. We review every case about 2 weeks in advance
of the date set for argument. If we feel the issues are set up clearly
enough in the briefings, we dispense with the oral arguments. In many
of those cases we enter a judgment right then and there, too. So it is
shortened.
I don't know too much about the background of this case, as I was
told it M"as a subject that came to the court of appeals of the eighth
circuit on the question of whether the trial court or State court, I be-
lieve, properly admitted this video tape deposition of the defendant.
1128
Mr. NoLDE. Yes. tliat was the case of Hendricks v. Jensen^ in which
the U.S. court of appeals for the eighth circuit in 1972 upheld the use
of this confession as constitutional, in the face of a challenge on fifth
amendment questions.
Judge Weis. I would like to see the FBI use this in every case where
they take a statement from a witness, a defendant. And the local police,
too. It would help.
[At this point the video taped proceeding was shown.]
Judge Weis. I think you can agree when the trial judge was called
to rule on the vokmtariness of this confession or the condition of the
defendant, he was in much better position to do it after seeing a tape
like that than relying on oral testimony on a printed sheet of paper.
Mr. NoLDE. In that same vein, I take it the use of video tape in such
other areas as police lineups would also be valuable in showing the
visual aspects of the lineup that are so crucial ?
Judge Weis. That is right. I have seen a tape prepared by the Cali-
fornia police. They used it on a raid. They have portable cameras and
recording units that hang on the strap over your shoulder and a little
camera that looks like a movie camera. They have one scene showing
the troopers running in the house and arresting people and you can
see what powerful evidence this could be if they said later the police
beat them over the heads when they walked through the door. They
have positive evidence one way or the other.
The cost of the tape might be an interesting item for you, too. Ordi-
narily, an hour's worth of tape costs about $25. I understand from an
article in the New York Times, within the past few weeks, that some
American manufacturers are now talking about using phonograph
discs, flat plastic dies, instead of the tape. They claim the charge would
be reduced from about $25 to less than $1 per hour. So you can see
how this would wipe out any cost problem at all within a very few
years, hopefully.
Mr. NoLDE. This tape could also be used to record the entire hearing.
We have seen a tape here todaj^ as used for a confession. I take it that
for use as the record of a hearing it would be a tremendous
improvement.
Judge Weis. Yes. And you could see a stack of flat records wouldn't
take up very much room, either, from a storage problem.
Mr. NoLDE. What safeguards are needed for such tapes ?
Judge Weis. The one most frequently recommended is the use of a
clock in the picture to show that the camera has not stopped and the
proceedings have not been interrupted. The clock keeps going around.
Some people recommend the use of a digital clock, one which flips
numbers from second to second.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopted some procedure with-
in the past 2 weeks allowing for the use of video tape depositions in
civil cases. One of the things they insist on is that digital clock in the
picture.
But again, I am told by experts it is more difficult to doctor a video
tape because you have the job not only of dubbing the sound but also
the picture. And trying to coordinate an alteration of the two they
say is almost impossible to do so as to pass detection by somebody who
knows about it.
1129
Mr. XoLDE. I think particularly where you have a closeup view of
the defendant and seeing his mouth move.
Judge Weis. Correct. The lack of synchronization would show up
quickly.
That is one thing, too, you note about the picture. Had the camera
been moved in a few feet closer, I think we would have gotten a better
closeup of the defendant.
Incidentally, I mentioned the picture phone a little bit ago. We have*
the picture phone with Bell Telephone Co. operating within a small
area of downtown Pittsburgh and they show a picture on a monitor'
about 6 inches wide, at the present time. But they carry a very high,
fidelity picture. And I saw the picture phone transmit an X-raj^ of a
tooth in regular size, and then focus it down to the point where you
could see decay in that tooth on the other phone to which the picture is
being relayed. It is tremendous.
Mr. NoLDE. Judge, would there be any reason why this video tape
couldn't be used to record the entire trial ? Is there any risk of dis-
rupting the trial ?
Judge Weis. No. The experiments that have been carried on, as I
mentioned in the Midwest mostly, in Michigan and Illinois, have shown
what they call the "bugaboo" of distracting the jurors and the witness
and the judge and the lawyers really doesn't exist. The parties will
perhaps notice the camera for the first 5 minutes of the proceeding and
then they ignore it. The cameras are, of coarse, very small, not much,
bigger than the movie camera ; that is, 1 foot long and 3 inches thick
and 6 inches high, being something of that nature. They are very
small and inconspicuous. You can hang one on a little bracket and
nobody will ever notice them. The operator can be in a separate
room operating by remote control.
Mr. Winn. Shouldn't they be told they are on video tape ?
Judge Weis. This has been raised by some people who think there
may be an invasion of privacy if testimony is video taped without his
knowledge or consent. I have a little difficulty accepting that because
if a witness goes on the stand in a public trial he has no privacy about
what he is testifying to. In fact, that is the very idea of the public
trial, to take away the privacy. But some judges have been exceed-
ingly careful to video tape only with the consent of the party being
photographed.
Mr. Winn. Was this young man asked for permission to do this ?
Judge Weis. It doesn't show on the tape. I would suppose he had
been. Again, the police usually do put tliat at the beginning, right
after they give him his rights, and say, "Do you understand it is being
taped," or "Do you consent to it." I think they did mention it was
being taped at the beginning. I don't recall if they specifically asked.
Mr. Winn. They said it is being taped. He identified himself and
identified the young man and the officer, and "also in the room" so-
and so. I took it that might be the operator.
Chairman Pepper. The camera.
Judge Weis. He did refer to the fact that the camera was there.
Mr. NoLDE. Would there be any difficulty in picking up side bar con-
ferences in your courtroom ?
1130
Jiidffe Wets. This is a mechanical prol:)lem T think conld be handled
without a sreat deal of trouble. They would have to have a camera
T)ositioned in such a fashion as to be able to pick it up. The problem you
have of the jury overhearina: it would be very simply resolved by hav-
ing a separate microphone over at the place where the bar conferences
were held so it would not go through the public address system in the
room.
INIr. NoLDE. Judge, turning to some other issues now, liased onvour
ex]^erience as a State court judge, as well as a U.S. district court judge
in Pennsylvania, who should control the calendar? Is it the district
attorney or the court ?
Judge Wets. I have had both. In the State courts the district at-
torney controlled the calendar and in the district court, the Federal
court, the judges control the calendai'.
]Mr. ^OLDE, Which is preferable ?
Judge Wets. I prefer having the judge control the calendar. T think
that once a case gets presented by indictment it becomes the business
of the coTU-t. It is the court whicli should look after getting_ that case
up for trial and disposed of. The district attorney, of course, is a public
officer, but yet he is a party to litigation in a sense, too. It alwavs seemed
a little strange to m.e that one partv to the litigation would control
when the case is called up. It is a little inconsistent with our idea of
equality before law that one litigant sets the date for the trial.
Mr. ISToLDE. It would seem to me if the iud^e controlled it, if he
were put in charge himself or had an administrative judge who had
overall supervisorv responsibility for getting cases through the system.
that it would greatly expedite the process. I just wondered what possi-
ble justification there really is for having the district attorney control
Judge Weis. I think in many jurisdictions it is a matter of tradi-
tion. In Alleghenv County, for a great many years, 20 or 30 or more,
the district attorney has "^controlled the calendar. It probably came
about because there was a rotating svstem of iudires who went to the
criminal court on rather rare occasion, and we had a lack of continuity
to administer the business of the court. That has been remedied in
the past few ^^ears. but I think historicallv that may have a lot to
do with the district attorney havin,": taken over the necessary work
of making up the trial list for example.
]\Ir. N"oT,r»E. So, traditionally, we have had slow justice.
Judge Wets. I guess we can't always blame it on the district attor-
nevs. T am sure tliey have a few comments on that.
My. Nolde. Do 3^ou favor the individual calendar system ?
Judge Wets. It depends on what kind of a workload vou have in the
court and what type cases you are dealing with. In the federal courts
we have an individual calendar, and I was very pleased with this. I
like to work with it from the standpoint of knowino: what my job was
and being able to schedule the cases as best I could. It works well for
serious cases. I would think that probablv every court should adopt
it for the serious tvpe case. But when you have a mass of minor cases,
perhans many which should not even be in the court, you will find
that the individual calendar may become imwieldly anct unworkable
and at times, for that type of case, the master calendar is the most
efficient.
1131
Again, it depends on tlie makeup of tlie court's inventory and Avhich
system they find works best. 1 doii'r think we can sr.y flatly one system
or the other is the absolute best in all circumstances.
Mr. NoLDE. Do you favor voir dire examination of juriors by the
judge?
,Tudge Wkis. Absolutely. I think there is a tremendous waste of
time that we have when the attorneys are given free rein to interrogate
jurors. I find no justification for that at all. And again, I guess it is a
matter of tradition and history. In our part of the country, for the
last ^')0 years or so, interrogation of the jurors except in cases where
the death penalty was invohed has always been cai-ried on by tlie judge
or court clerk. The attorneys do not ask questions directly. Our voir
dires generally do not take more than 20 minutes to an hour. When I
read about tliese voir dires going on for weeks and months, I just
am not used to that type of procedure at all and can't really see why
it is necessary. The parties are entitled to an impartial jury without
any obvious bias or prejudice, but I don't think they are entitled to
people they would like to have on every jury.
Mr. NoLDE. The latter is what has really been at the heart of these
lengthy examinations.
Judge Weis. Yes.
Mr. NoLDE. What about the use of the grand jury? Do you feel tliat
is necessarv as a routine way of initiating criminal cases, or should it
be reserved only for limited kinds of situations ?
Judge Weis. The chief \'alu6 of the grand jury, as I see it. is in
the investigative field. But in the routine ciiminal case, the use of the
grand jury often does little more than delay the proceedings in the
case. We have constitutional problems, of course, so we just aren't free
to do as we would choose in this area. But I am rather impressed by
the English system which requires a pi'oliminary hearing in the crim-
inal case, at which time the prosecution furnishes to the magistrate
affidavits from the prosecution witnesses and establishes a prima facie
case in this manner.
At this preliminary hearing tlie defendant finds out what the case
is against him. lie gets a measure of discovery thei-e. I would think
that it would speed guilty pleas, for example, if the defendant was
aware that there was an overwhelming case against him. On the other
hand, if the defendant is innocent, it certainly would be a great help
for him to prove his case if he knew at the preliminary hearing what
it was that the government was relying on. With the grand jury sys-
tem, of course, that testimony is secret and the defendant doesn't
know what is being asserted against him.
Mr. Xolde. And it also i-esults in some further delay and, in fact,
I take it the grand jury really doesn't exercise much of an independent
judgment. It almost invariably goes along with the prosecutor.
Jud<re Weis. I have never ))een in a grand jury room but I have
heard that chai'ge made many times.
Mr. NoLDE. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions at this time.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Winn.
Mr. Winn. I have no further questions. I find it very interesting and
I think it may well be part of our judicial system in the future.
Thank you. Judge.
1132
Chairman Pepper. Judgje, we both agree that there is no reason why
the improved techniques that are invented from time to time could not
be employed with proper safeguards in the judicial proceedings, as in
other activities. I just would like to ask you a very few questions.
How long did you say it takes in your court from the time a case is
docketed before it is disposed of. ordinarily ?
Judge Wets. I have to be honest. Congressman Pepper. I haA^ebeen
on this court now for a month and I haven't gotten all of these statistics
down yet, so I can't give you an accurate answer. So it is probably
better if I didn't give you any.
We consider ourselves current in the criminal appeals. We are not
as up to date in the civil field as we would like to be, but hope to arrive
there by November or December of this year. But I can't give you
figures right now.
"^Chairman Pepper. I just returned from a conference in England
where we were at the Ditchley Park Foundation site. We were dis-
cussing correctional institutions, penal institutions, and I mentioned
to that group that in this country we had a great variety of sentences
imposed for the same offense by different judges; that sometimes
prisoners would get talking to each other and it would be disclosed
that one had gotten a much heavier sentence for relatively the same
offense than the other one had received. Do you find that to be true in
your judicial system generally ?
Judge Wets! It is a problem. There is some disparity in sentencing,
there is no question about it. But so long as we have the human element
involved, both from the standpoint of the judge and prisoner, I think
there is bound to be some variation.
It is true the same crime may have been committed by two different
individuals and their sentences may be quite different, but perhaps a
review of the presentence report would show you that one had a
lengthy criminal court record, that the reports from the neighborhood
were he was a dangerous person, verging on psychotic, for example,
und the other man perhaps is involved in a first offense,^ he has come
under a bad influence, that there is hope of rehabilitating him, and
it is felt a long sentence would only insure his total loss to society
where a short term might be enough to jolt him back into the right
path.
So that enters into the picture. It is true, there is no getting away
from it, that some judges regard some crimes as being more severe than
others. We are trying to alleviate that by having sentencing institutes
iov the judiciary. We meet every couple of years or so and sit down and
talk about what would you give in a sentence like this, what is the
■average sentence on a national scale, what is the average sentence in
this circuit, for example, for that crime.
Chairman Pepper. Would you say your court would exercise some
sort of general overall supervision of the variety of sentences in what
appear to be similar situations? So that if you found a sentence you
felt too severe for a given offense, the court might on that ground
alojie either modify the sentence if you had sought to do that or send
it back ?
Jtdge Weis. I am a little hesitant about getting the appellate courts
into the sentencing process, because this is an area which traditionally
has been reserved for the trial judge. There are many things a trial
1133
juc]<re knows about a defendant from sittinsf there throiigli the trial,
from having- followed that case through indictment until it is termi-
nated. A lot of these things he can't possibly translate into words, he
can't put down in a report accurately, but has a real feel for the case
that someone reading the cold record would never have. In all candor
and fairness to some of my appellate brethren, they have never sat on
a trial court and never had that experience of seeing how a sentencing
works and what can enter into the situation.
If there is to be a review of sentencing by someone other than the
sentencing judge, it would seem to me preferable it be done by panels
of trial judges who are in that field daily and who could have some
eiTect in moderating and evening out a disparity between sentences.
If there was to be a review, that is where I would prefer to see it rather
than the appellate court.
Chairman Pepper. What is your view on indeterminate sentences?
Judge Weis. When I first got in the field I thought it was a great
idea. It seemed to be the ideal way of letting the probation and parole
authorities keep the man in as long as need be until they thought he
was ready to get out. But I found to my surprise, that the prisoners
were the ones who were most upset with it because they would much
rather know they have a fixed sentence, 5 years for example, that they
can look forward to getting out, than have an indeterminate sentence
wliich might let them out in 3 or 4 years. They want some element of
certainty, I guess, and some ways to pace themselves and get adjusted
to it.
Now, I find it hard to dispute that.
Chairman Pepper. Would you find it desirable for the court to
impose the maximum sentence therefore ?
Judge Weis. Again, I would have to look at the case. I would like
to know how that maximum sentence is going to affect this particular
person. Is it going to ruin him? Is it going to take away all hope that
he might have for coming out and straightening out ? Or is it neces-
sary for society to give the maximum sentence ?
I just can't generalize on that too well.
Chairman Pepper. IVhat you have said borders on the question of
the type of penal or correctional institution we have in the country.
Wiat observations would you make about the type of institutions we
ought to have in this country for corrections ?
Judge Weis. I think this is one of our greatest problems. A trial
judge does a great deal of agonizing over what kind of sentence he is
going to give. If he has a young fellow who has been convicted of a
nonviolent crime, who nevertheless must be given some kind of punish-
ment, you know it is pretty difficult for the judge to see this young
fellow and send him away to a penitentiary where he is going to be
confined with hardened criminals who will wreck whatever opportu-
nity there was to straighten the kid out. They really ruin him and he
will come out far worse than when he went in. *
I think we need more different types of institutions. We have to
have more classification so we don't put the violent psychotic man
in with the person who can be saved. The pei-son who commits a non-
violent crime shouldn't be in the same category as murderers and
people who assault and kill and ruin people.
This botliers judges. If they know that a young fellow in front of
them is going to be sexually assaulted when he is sent away to a
1134
penitentiai-y, do you want that responsibility on your shoulder? I tell
you it really makes you stop and think. We just don't have the as-
surance Avhicli we would like to haye that when we send a person into
the system that he is going to be properly protected.
We have some leeway and we can pick out some institutions and that
weighs a great deal in our sentencing. Again, this is one of the factors
that may not enter apparently into the disparity of sentence, but if
one judge feels this man can weather a lengthy sentence at any kind
of institution, he is tough enough to take care of himself, he might not
feel quite the same, he might not feel quite the same if a young, slightly
built person who is obviously going to be the victim is standing before
him. It is a serious problem.
Chairman Pepper. I agree with you. One of the most serious prob-
lems we have today is what to do about the correctional system, as we
call it, that wx now have. You know very well, of course, the reputa-
tion for i-ecidivism that most institutions have. The brutalizing effect
most of them have on the people who go there, the assaults to which
so many are subjected.
T remember we discussed the other day as to whether or not an
individual, say a young man who in all probability would be assaulted
when he entered the old-type prison we have todav, mi.eht get an
injunction. From all he knows about this institution it is going to mean
terrible ao'ony and anguish.
And while the system has a right to incarcerate him, even to punish
him, he does have a right to protect his i^erson against such brutality.
And unless he can be given assurance of competent character that he
will not be so subjected, he asks the laws to protect him. That is not
part of his punishment. It is not part of his sentence to experience such
sort of an ordeal.
I would like such courts to begin to grant such injunction and tell
the authorities you can't put a person like that in an institution unless
you can assure that person of protection from all other persons there.
The individual protection to which he is entitled.
Judge Wets. What we get so often are the facts that the institutions
are so overcrowded now and there is no place to put the prisoners and
not enough opportunity to properly supervise them. It is an ai-ea badly
in need of correction.
Chairman Pepper. In my State, the authorities publicly called unon
the courts not to send any more people; that they dichi't have any
more room for them.
But I am hoping that this committee will recommend to the House
that the Federal Government pay at least half of the cost of helping
the States to establish some of these new, small institutions, modeni
in character, with relatively few provisions for maximum secunty,
where they will be in an area reasonably proximate to the area where
the man came from; where his family and friends presumably live;
where there will be opportunity for some community contact and
where there would be job opportunities available. It costs a lot of
money to set up a system of training in an ordinary' institution. They
can train in a reasonable number of trades or skills, for example, but
inside of the community those skills are available and accessible to the
individual.
1135
jNIy h(>i)o is tliiit the Federal Government can help the States stait
buildino; these institutions; that once they get it going the States will
find they are desirable ; they get a better record there of behavior on
the part of the inmates, less recidivism and the like. And once these
institutions are finally established the States will be able to bear the
cost problem rathei- tlian the Federal Government, although I wouldn't
personally object to that.
Just one other thing. You do feel that one of the great needs of our
judicial system is to try to prevent as many young people as possible
from getting embroiled in the system? In other words, to keep them
from being school dropouts, try to teach them the necessary skills, tiy
treatment r or if necessary limited incarceration in the ai-eas from
which they come and the like?
Judge Weis. Absolutely. Congressman Pepper. As I said a number
of times, trying to blame the judges for causing a crimewave is like
trying to blame the surgeon who cuts away the cancel- for causing the
disease. Once it gets to us, things have gone too far in far too many
cases. We have to start long before they get into court to correct these
problems.
Chairman Pepper. You are so right. The courts, as a matter of fact,
simply are taking the refuse of society as it were.
One last question. Do you find in your trial experience, as a State
and Federal trial judge and as an appellate judge, a great rate of
recidivism among tihe people that come up for serious offenses before
the court ? Are most of them people who have been in trouble before ?
Judge Weis. Yes. We find really not a very large percentage of first-
time offenders. They have had brushes before and they keep coming
back. Again, it gets back to the point you made before. I think, the lack
of a proper correctional system.
I would like to again endorse what you said about having smaller
institutions. I think the idea of having large warehouses is a mistake, a
big mistake.
Chairman Pepper. Several of us on this committee went up to Attica
and we saw the conditions there, heard the complaints of Mr. Oswald.
He knew how to do better but he didn't have the money, he didn't have
the means.
Judge Weis. That is right.
Chairman Pepper. Governor Rockefeller, when we conferred with
him on the way to Attica, said, "Nobody knows better than I what it
takes to modernize the penal system, but where is the money coming
from? It costs $100 million to $200 million to do it." So there we are.
We are just spinning our wheels, turning them in and out.
Judge Weis. It might be a good investment if Ave did spend some
money, because if we could cut down the cost of crime in this country
we have done a good job.
Chairman Pepper. We have had witnesses here for the last 2 weeks
who were telling about the new method of dealing Avith juvenile offend-
ers which costs much less than the old methods and have been inuch
more effective. Tliev pointed out in some cases they wei-e spending as
much as $12,000-$20,000 on an individual, and in a few instances up to
$36,000 a year per individual confined. Somebody pointed out you could
not only send the inmate to college, send him abroad every summer and
save money at that rate of expense and get a very much better result
when they adopt new methods.
95-158— 73— pt. 3 12
1136
Mr. Counsel, have you any other questions ?
Mr. NoLDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Judge Weis, the problem of frivolous appeals seems to be inundating-
our appellate courts. What techniques do you utilize to deal with this
problem ?
Judge Weis. We have the two techniques I mentioned before, the
screening of the case in advance of the time set for argument, if we find
it is frivolous we do not even have argument. We decide it on briefs and
we decide it with a judgment order, which is simply a recitation that we
affirm the result below without any opinion. So I think those are pretty
effective ways of disposing of the frivolous appeal efficiently in as short
a time as possible.
We can't cut it off completely. They are entitled to an appeal and if
they have something, we want to take a look at it first to make sure.
Mr. NoLDE. What about having a single hearing appeal procedure, in
which all issues and all appeals are to be heard, so as to prevent con-
tinual reassertion of further issues?
Judge Weis. This is a real problem. I would say it would be great
if we could have only one appeal per prisoner, for each defendant, and
that would end it. But there have been a few instances where on a
habeas corpus or post conviction hearing some fact which did come
out which hadn't been developed before, indicated a wrong had been
committed. I am not quite willing to say we will have one appeal and
one appeal only in each case.
But there has to be something done to limit the repetition. When
I left the district court, one man, one prisoner, had 12 or 14 cases
pending there before me. I consolidated them and I kept them all
together, because I could not afford, in fairness to the other litigants
and the other people on my docket, to hear every case of his as it came
in. He would file a complaint with the court whenever anything went
wrong in the prison. If the doctor didn't show up on time that week,
the following day we would get a complaint. If he wasn't treated by an
ear specialist when he had an earache, in would come a complaint,
"^^^len they wouldn't let him play the piano one day, in came a com-
plaint. We are just flooded with that kind of material.
We had another who filed no less than 40, perhaps 50 petitions, try-
ing to get out, repeating the same things over and over again. We
have to do something.
]Mr. NoLDE. That is right. What can be done ? That tends to really
demonstrate the frivolous aspect which still takes up the court's
time when you have to screen those cases.
Judge Weis. I am in favor of some type of ombudsman to whom
all complaints of the prison would be referred before they are allowed
to get to court. If it is a frivolous thing like they didn't get their
meal, somebody wasn't permitted to visit them, or a thing that could
easily be corrected by the prison, it should be done by the administra-
tive officer before the court gets involved.
Mr. jSTolde. Are there any other ways of dealing with the issue
of finality, to really achieve once and for all disposition of these
cases ?
Judge Weis. Again, I would like to say yes, but I don't know of
any answer, because I am afraid if we shut off all avenues of appeal
to somebody, we may just be keeping somebody in jail who shouldn't
1137
be there. I am willing to spend extra time looking at a serious case,
a serious question, if it is important. It is just the frivolous ones I
don't think we should have to deal with.
yh\ NoLDE. What about the use of unsigned memorandum opinions
by the court?
Judge Weis. We are doing that quite a bit. Per curiam opinions in
some cases, and these judgment orders I referred to before, are simple
orders.
!Mr. NoLDE. Does that help to speed up the process ?
Judge Weis. It helps speed up the process and also helps to cut down
the proliferation of printed opinions which I feel are really over-
whelming lis. It makes research more difficult. We have too many
opinions saying the same thing over and over again without develop-
in <r anvthino; new.
Mr. NoLDE. Particularly in criminal cases ?
Judge Weis. Yes. Many of these are just the same problems repeated
o\er and over again. In civil court cases, too, we have too many opin-
ions published.
Mr. NoLDE. Dealing wdth the speedy trial issue, are the bills that are
presently pending which provide for a mandatory dismissal if the
trial is not brought within a 60-day period, capable of being imple-
mented by the courts ? Would you need more resources ? How feasible
are thev ?
Judge Weis. I am a little afraid of those bills because I can see
an instance where a case might go past the 60th day or get to the 65th
or 70th day and there may have been good reason why it hasn't
been reached for trial but it hasn't been and the law says it must be
dismissed. So you are letting a serious criminal walk out on the street
if for some reason his trial wasn't scheduled.
I see too much possibility of harm in that type of situation. Our
courts in western Pennsylvania adopted a f)lan just about 3 or 4 months
ago, where we are working — and I keep saying "we," I am not in that
court any more — the district court plans to try every jail case within
60 days and every other case within 180 days. They are doing a good
job of keeping within those guidelines, but they have that flexibility
of taking care of that unexpected situation that may arise, where to
free the man because of an arbitrary time limit would work a gross
injustice on the community. I think that that type of scheduling and
time problem is better left to the court to handle itself and the judges
are vrell aware of the need for speed, and I think, are doing a conscien-
tious job of getting those cases up and disposed of just as soon as
possible. Certainly in the Federal system they are. As I say, I am
dubious about the desirability of legislation putting inflexible limita-
tions on it.
Mr. Nolde. Unless you had some exception ?
Judge Weis. Once you put the exception in, aren't you throwing it
right back to the district judges anyhow, where it is now?
^Ir. NoLDE. The problem is that under the present system, there are
great delays.
Judge Weis. Not too many avoidable delays, I don't believe, in the
Federal system, I was a member of the Metropolitan Chief Judges
Conference of the District Court which met on three or four occasions
to discuss this problem of delay in criminal cases. The Federal Judicial
1138
Center put on a number of meetings in the past 2 years and we reviewed
the major district courts in the large cities, New York, Pittsburgh.
Chicago, San Francisco, and so forth, and we found out where the
delays were, what it was that was causing tliem, and what it was that
could be done to improve it. Most of the members of that conference
went back to their local courts with plans and new desire to get within
those limits and it has been successful.
Mr. NoLDE. As I understand the Judicial Center study, in the busier
district courts delays average 350 days between arrest and trial.
Judge Weis. That is not the usual case.
Mr. Noi.de. It is in the busier courts.
Judge Weis. Even there it would not be an average case. Whenever
you get involved in a complicated criminal matter, such as a securities
problem or wiretap gambling case, for exauiple, these require a great
deal of preparation and it would be impossible, from the cases I have
handled in the wiretap gambling field, to get tliat out within fi months.
Because the time required to prepare transcrijits of all of those tapped
phone conversations often takes 3 or 4 months of stenographic time
before the attorneys have a chance to look at it and we have time to
schedule a preliminary hearing and pass on all of the legal issues in-
volved. So some cases just have to take time. We haven't got the
mechanics to do it any better.
But the routine cases I think are getting out faster.
One of the points that impressed me on that was the time it takes
from the day of a ]3lea of guilty or finding by a jur\^ to the imposition
of sentence. This is the time devoted to preparation of presentence
report. Now, this spread of time is regulated almost completely by the
number of probation officers who are available to do that report. We
have a shortage of probation officers. When they have to take care of
their regular case load and prepare presentence reports in addition,
that time just stretches out. The only way to cure it I know of is to get
more help in that particular area.
Mr. Nolde. I have no further questions.
Chairman Pepper. Judge, we thank you very much for coming today
and giving us your very enlightened and very encouraging testimony.
You were very kind to come.
Judge Weis. Thank you. I enjoyed being here.
[Judge Weis' prepared statement follows :]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joseph Weis, Jr., Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals.
Third Circuit, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Every trial lawyer likes to have his witnesses appear in front of a jury to
give their testimony. Similarly, most trial jndges prefer to have everyone ron-
nected with a case present in the conrtroom dnring the whole of the trial. In this
respect, the common law legal profession has traditionally been hostile to the
procedures utilized in most continental European conntrles of having all or most
of the testimony submitted by means of written affidavits.
However, the adversary system in civil cases at least has long recognized that
there do arise circumstances where it is simply impossible, as a practical matter,
to have a witness present for a particular trial and in those situations a deposi-
tion has reluctantly been permitted. In a few instances in criminal cases, at the
instance of the defendant, a deposition has been utilized.
The resistance to use of a deposition in civil cases has been due mainly to the
inability of the ordinary stenographically recorded transcript to convey the
subtleties of expression, mannerism, tone of voice, inflection, and appearance of
the witness which so often have been strong factors in evaluating the credibility
1139
of the deponent. My experience, both as a trial lawyer and as a trial judge, have
convinced nie of the validity of this objection to use of depositions.
There has been more resistance to the use of depositions in criminal cases than
in civil ones, based on constitutional grounds as well as matters of preference
of the trial bar.
For example, just a few years ago. the Committee on Revision of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure recommended the use of depositions by the prosecu-
tion but this was rejected by The Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, The Congress, as you know, in 1970 passed the Organized Crime
Control Act, whose Title VI authorized the use of depositions by the prosecu-
tion in cases where appropriate certification is made by the Department of
Justice that the case involves organized crime.
This provision of the Act was upheld by the Second Circuit of Appeals in
The United Staies v. Singleton, 460 F. 2d 1148 (1972), where the witne.ss was too
ill to leave his home in Alabama to come to New York to testify.
The dis.senting opinion of Judge Oakes emphasized the two main objections
•to the use of depositions in criminal trials :
(1) The fact that there is the possibility that the defense may not be
prepared properly to cross-examine because it has not heard the rest of the
prosecution's case, and
(2) That the witness's testimony hud not been subjected to the scrutiny
of a judge and jury in a solemn impressive atmosphere of a federal court
which might cause the testimony to be given with a little more care, delibera-
ticu, and accuracy.
Judge Oakes relates the second condition to the constitutional right of con-
;frontation which implies not only the presence of the accused, at the time of inter-
rogation of the witness, but the jury as well, so that they may look at the witness,
iind judge his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his
testimony in forming a judgment on credibility.
Judge bakes' opinion is interesting because it expresses the expansive view of
the right of confrontation.
The use of depositions can have an effect in speeding disposition of criminal
trials. Every trial judge is familiar with the all too frequent request for a con-
tinuance because of the unavailability of a witness. It is a reason which must not
be lightly disregarded and even though judges are reluctant to countenance
delay, tliey must never forget that an injustice speedily administered is no sub-
stitute for justice, albeit delayed.
About two years ago I became privileged to conduct a pilot project of The Fed-
eral Judicial Center on the use of videotape in court proceedings, with the main
•emphasis upon the use for recording depositions.
I'm enthusiastic about the use of the new means of recording depositions and
predict that it will do much to revise our traditional methods of trying cases. It
should be clear that I recognize that the preferable method is to have the witness
present in the courtroom. If he can't be, videotaped recordings are the next best
thing.
The use of videotape offers a suitable means to afford the parties the advan-
tages of giving a jury more opportunities to assess the characteristics of deposed
witness than that offered by the stenographieally recorded format presently
used and at the same time reduce the incidents of delay because of witness
unavailability. Videotape recording will also have a bearing on the constitutional
objections since the jury can see the witness and make its judgments almost as
well as if he were present. Still open for decision would be the question of the
accused's rights to have the witness in the courtroom. If <-he requirement of
Tinavailability were met. then that objection would seem to ' e an.swered.
Insofar as the public trial aspect is concerned, every spectator in the courtroom
would have the opportunity to be present to view the pre.sentation of the deposi-
tion and. thus, insure this constitutional facet of the trial, if indeed it does apply
to deposition testimony at all.
The other objection cited by Judge Oakes in the Singleton case — that of lack
of opportunity to adequately prepare for cross-examination — is of much narrower
application. It is not every witness who is critical in the sense that a thorough
understanding of the prosecution's case is essential to adequately cross-examine.
Indeed, many witnesses in criminal trials supply only neutral, albeit necessary,
material, e.g*. chain of custody of evidence, identification of documents, of signa-
tures, laboratory analyses, etc. With this type of evidence, any reasonably com-
petent defense lawyer would have little difficulty in preparing an adequate cross-
1140
«
examination. If tlie deposition of a critical witness is to be taken, the trial judge
should consider the probiems of the defense and require adequate disclosure by
the prosecution before granting the right to proceed by deposition.
I repeat that a deposition is, of course, not as good as actual attendance at a
trial. No one maintains that it is. But we must recognize with our increasingly
mobile society and the demands upon the time of so many people that attendance
of all at a trial has become an increasingly complex and difficult matter. Video-
tape presentations are an improvement over old methods and may well be ade-
quate enough to safeguard the rights of the defendant without impairing the
rights of the public.
I've had the privilege of sitting through a civil case which was tried twice,
the first one ended in a hung jury, and utilized only the old fashioned steuo-
graphically recorded type of deposition. The second trial used videotape. The dif-
ference between the impressions gained between hearing a mere reading of the
old fashioned deposition and watching and listening to the videotape recording
was startling. If I had ever had any doubt, this trial convinced me of the neces-
sity and the desirability of viewing the witness while he gives his testimony.
In another case that I tried, the parties had gone to the precaution of having
a court stenographer prepare a transcript during the videotaped deposition. I
read the transcript before the trial started and, again, was amazed at how dif-
ferently I was affected by the visual presentation. Statements that seemed clear
and positive on the printed page became defensive, argumentative and equivocal
when seen on the monitor. I must admit that my view of the testimony changed
from the time that I had read it in the deposition to when I had seen it on the
video screen.
We are not very considerate of the witnesses in criminal proceedings. They
must often wait for days to be called, oftentimes they will appear at the court-
house only to find that the case has been postponed at the last minute. Witnesses
often appear before a Grand Jury, a preliminary hearing, and the trial itself.
Indeed the innocent victim often is inconvenienced as much if not more than a
guilty defendant in a criminal prosecution. A^ideotape offers a way to limit the
number of appearances of witnesses at court trials.
The critical witness in organized crime cases also offers an opportunity for
utilization of video. The Organized Crime Act already authorizes depositions
in such situations. Can't you see though, how the fact that a witness had testi-
fied and his evidence was in "The Can" on tape would tend to remove an induce-
ment to do away with him before the trial. What would the organized criminal
gain by killing the witness when his testimony is readily available to the jury
in any event. The accused would be doing little in such a case to help himself
and would be mere'y adding to his troubles.
I have sat through a number of Jackson v. Denno hearings whose object as
you know is to determine if a confession was voluntary. Some of these pro-
ceedings pose difficult factual questions. This is a particularly important area
of the criminal law because we all have heard of cases where confessions have,
in fact, turned out to be coerced or inaccurate. I can't help thinking that most
of the questions would have been far easier to decide if the confession had been
put on videotape instead of being typed out by the police officer by the painful,
hunt and peck, one finger, method. Indeed I suspect that many of the hearings
would not even have been held at all if counsel had had the opportunity to view
the tape in advance. Videotaping of confessions by the police should not only be
encouraged but in fact, in my view, mandated.
Surely the use of a closed circuit T.V. to cope with the disruptive defendant sit-
uation is a far better solution that gagging him or removing him from the court-
room with no access to what is transpiring during his absence. It offers a way of
allowing the proceedings to continue in an orderly manner and yet eliminate the
"In Absentia" type of trial which is so offensive to American tradition.
While there has been an encouragingly freqiient use of videotape in civil cases,
there has been little activity in the criminal field. One interesting case which
happened recently, however, is w^orth describing. Last November a witness who
had terminal cancer and as a result had his vocal chords removed was video-
taped in the hospital witli an interpreter using lip reading technique to vocalize
the witness' testimony. By the time the case came to trial in the California
state court just a month or two ago, the witness was dead. The trial judge, how-
ever, permitted the use of the testimony and the defendant was convicted. This
case, of course, has not yet been up on appeal but the fact situation is certainly
very interesting.
1141
I understand that one United States magistrate in California has been sueess-
ful in persuading tlio attorneys to take tlie videotape deposition of material wit-
nesses in some immigration cases so that these witnesses may be freed from jail
far in advance of trial.
The videotape equipment presently on the market is very portable and its use
in describing the scenes or incidents of crimes has not yet been utilized to any
degree. There is one film which I have seen of some California police during the
course of a raid on some premises. The police in Denver, Colorado for some years
have used videotape as an aid to conviction in drunk driving cases. But I think
it is obvious that if instead of the ordinary still pictures we could have the video-
tape record of what the police see on their first visit to the scene of a crime, the
matter would be much clearer for both judge and jury.
I tried a criminal case just a few months ago wliere the description of a stair-
case and its location within a cellar was of vital importance. Although a number
of witnesses testified to this fact, I was unable to understand the critical facts
and adjourned the case for a half day so that I could travel to the scene of the
premises. In this particular instance not a great deal of time was lost since
the premises were not far from the courthouse. It would have been different,
however, if they had been many miles removed from the place where the trial was
held. Again, a videotape presentation would have saved many words, conveyed
the idea clearly, and saved considerable time.
Presently available on a limited basis is the picture telephone which shows the
image of the parties as well as carries their voices. It won't be too long before
we will be able to take a witness's testimony in a distant city and flash his picture
on a screen in the courtroom. Whether we use the telephone company cables or
some species of closed circut T.V. is still to be resolved but the advent of the
picture phone and its use in the courtroom is very close.
The advantages of not being required to bring in a witness from a distant
area are obvious. Particularly useful for this type of presentation would be
that testimony of an expert witness, for example, which we so often encounter
in cases brought in the Federal Court. The FBI refers matters to its experts
in Washington, perhaps for an opinion on handwriting or chemical analysis
and so forth. I have had to continue cases because the expert was testifying
in another court in another city at the particular time that we needed him in
my courtroom. This type of delay would be eliminated when we can have the
man in Washington make an appointment to appear on the picture phone at
a certain hour on a certain day. He would be able to testify in three or four cities
on the same day without leaving the District of Columbia.
These technological developments being utilized and contemplated for use in
the courts are really small steps, as I see them, but they do indicate that the
courts are receptive to modern technology and do realize that they can be helpful
in helping us perform our task more efliciently and in less time, without sac-
rificing the quality of the justice being administered. The demands upon the
judicial system today require that we be alert for every opportunity to improve
our work through modern scientific methods. I am convinced that properly
utilized and with appropriate safeguards, technology can be helpful without
impairing constitutional safeguards.
Chairman Pepper. The committee will adjourn imtil 10 o'clock
tomorrow morning in this room.
[Wliereupon, at 3 :55 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene
at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 3, 1973.]
STREET CRIME IN AMERICA
(Prosecution and Court Innovations)
THURSDAY, MAY 3, 1973
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on Crime,
Washington, B.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :20 a.m., in room 1302,
Longwortli House Office Building, Hon. Claude Pepper (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Representatives Pepper, Brasco, Mann, Rangel, Steiger,
Winn, and Sandman.
Also present : Chris Nolde, chief counsel ; Robert Trainor, assistant
counsel ; and Leroy Bedell, hearings officer.
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
Mr. Counsel, will you introduce the first witness.
;Mr. Nolde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are pleased to have with us this morning. Judge Halleck of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Judge Halleck is a graduate of Williams College and the George
Washington University Law School, Judge Halleck served as an officer
in the U.S. Na"\y for 4 years. He clerked for Judge Alexander HoltzofT
of the U.S. district court, was an assistant U.S. attorney in the District
of Columbia for 2 vears, was an associate of the well-known Wash-
ington law firm of Hogan & Hartson.
He was appointed to the bench in October of 1965. He is now a judge
in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Judge Halleck, we are pleased to have you here this morning.
Chairman Pepper. Judge Halleck, I would not want the time to pass
without saying that I had the honor of serving in the Congress with
your distinguished father, who has been my friend for a great many
years, and T think you render most favorable service on the bench.
We are delighted to have you here. I appreciate your coming.
STATEMENT OP HON. CHARLES WHITE HALLECK, JUDGE,
SUPERIOR COURT OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA
Judge Halleck. Thank you. IMr. Oiairman.
Recently there has been a plethora of rhetoric about law and order
and crime in the streets which, unfortunately, seems to have generated
a good deal more heat than light. The criminal justice system has come
under increasing fire for its alleged inability to deal with the problem
of crime in the streets, and more frequently are we treated to the
spectacle of various elements within the system heaping blame on other
(1143)
1144
elements of the system in order to avoid any responsibility for apparent
f aihires. It is important at the outset, tlien, to define the problem and
the system intended to deal with it.
''Grime in the Streets" has become a convenient catch phrase of
dubious value. Viewed from the perspective of the citizenry, it rep-
resents the source of gnawing fear that makes people afraid to go out
at night, that makes people watch over their shoulders, and turns
liomes and businesses into armed camps behind locked and bolted
doors. Essentially crime in the streets is urban crime; it is big city
crime in the inner or core areas. It is crime committed by the poor,
the addict, the underprivileged, and the minority groups. And this is
so because of societal, cultural, and economic problems which cry for
solution on a vast scale. Yet, these are problems which call for solu-
tions manifestly beyond the power of the criminal justice system to
provide. Police cannot eradicate poverty. Prosecutors and defense
lawyers cannot improve education; nor can judges train the disad-
vantaged or provide jobs for them. The Department of Corrections
cannot erase prejudice. The problems of urban blight and continuing
inner-city decay are beyond the ken of j)robation officers, be they either
soft or hardheaded. But it is, I think, essential that we realize that it
is inner-city crime that we mean when we talk of crime in the streets,
and it is the larger cities of Ameiica that pose the real problems.
Finally, in defining the subject matter, it is equally important to
bear in mind the kinds of crimes that the citizenry fear when crime
in the streets is discussed. People stav in their houses at night be-
cause they are afraid of the depredations of those perfect strangers
who may commit a crime of violence. Robbery, theft, pocketbook
snatch, and to a lesser extent rape and physical assault, are the crimes
the citizens fear.
Burglaries, auto thefts, store holdups, bank robberies, strong-armed
larcenies, and other types of violent economic crimes against property
by persons previously unknown to the victims are the crimes that put
dread in the hearts of our law-abiding citizens. In essence, these are
personal and economic crimes committed by strangers. Crimes which
place in jeopardy the person or the property of the victim are the
crimes which the public fears and which the public properly ex-
pects the criminal justice system to deal with most efficiently.
Unfortunately, the public expectation frequently exceeds the ability
of the system to perform, and the result is a cacophony of excuses
and blame shifting designed to win public approval for the efforts
by the part of the system under fire, and to cause the disenchanted
public to cast about elsewhere for a convenient whi]>ping boy — I rather
hesitate to use the word "scapegoat"' these days, Mr. Chairman.
Politicians too easily play upon public concern about the state of
crime in the city streets in order to win A'oter approval for promised,
but not particularized, efforts to do something about it. The criminal
justice system itself is essentiallv an adversary system, in which vari-
ous parts are constantly pitted against each other in a search for
truth. Unfortunately, the very nature of the beast militates against
cooperative efforts. As a result, the public seldom, if ever, gets a real
overview of the whole system, and in large measure is led to believe
that this or that particular shoring up of this or that segment of the
system will produce a Christlike miracle, a delusion frequently fostered
1145
by the part of the system that is the recipient of public money at the
moment.
A major and distressing fallout from this sort of piecemeal approach
is a tendency, ultimately, to cast blame on permissive courts, or lenient,
softheaded judges. Perhaps we judges are in part at fault for the fact
that too often we are blamed for the ills of the entire criminal justice
system, because we tend to remain aloof from all attacks, neither
answering nor casting blame on others. We are expected to remain
detached and silent on our benches, while we observe the frequently
insoluble problems whirling before our eyes.
We must apply the laws written by others for the benefit of the
guilty and innocent alike, and yet we must suffer in silence while
otheis exhort the public through the medium of roadside billboards
to impeach us or, at a more mundane level, seek to blame the judges
for allowing so many people to be released into the community on
bond, probation, or parole that 80 percent of the robberies in this
city could be halted if we would but lock everybody up. I am here
neither to defend myself, nor to cast blame on others. I would hope to
be able to point out that we are all part of a much larger system,
and tliat only through our concerted efforts at educating the public to
our respective roles, obligations, and limitations, can we expect public
support and confidence in our fight against crime.
Essentially^, the criminal justice system begins with the citizens,
and includes the police, the sheriff or marshal, the juries — both grand
and petit — prosecutors, defense lawj'ers, judges, court support person-
nel, probation officers, departments of correction, parole boards, and
parole officers. Citizens play a major role, as both wrongdoers and vic-
tims, witnesses, and jurors.
Without the full understanding and cooperation of the citizenry,
the system simply cannot function. Witnesses are necessary, and citi-
zen efi'orts to prevent crime are indispensable. There simply are not
enough policemen to play the criminal man-to-man, or one-on-one.
When citizens allow Kitty Genovese to be murdered, they can scarcely
be heard to complain about crime in the city streets.
Consequently, citizen support of police and the court system is es-
sential. Constant carping at the courts undermines that citizen con-
fidence, and is, then, in the final analysis, counterproductive. Rather,
the police, the prosecutors, the courts, and corrections must seek to
understand and appreciate each other's functions and limitations, and
join in explaining the system frankly and honestly to the general pub-
lic. Conmiunity relations is not something that should be left solely
to the police by default.
A^Hien we recognize the real natui-e of crime in the city streets, it
should become apparent that we are too often diverting our police from
efforts to prevent and solve such crimes. In many of our major cities,
fully 50 percent of the arrests made by police, with the concomitant
expenditure of money and time by lawyers, couits, and prisons, are
for A'ictimless crimes. Public drunkenness leads the parade.
Fortunately, in the District of Columbia, police no longer arrest for
public drunkenness, and there has been no noticeable change in the
number of drunks on the public ways, while the criminal justice system
has been relieved of huge numbers of "criminals'' whose only victims
were themselves.
1146
Similarly, the expenditure of large police, court, and corrections
efforts to abolish gambling in the District of Columbia seems incon-
gruous when compared with a State supported and nin numbers game
in the neighboring States of ^Maryland and New Jersey. The public
soon understands that gambling is not wrong, it is just that certain
kinds in certain places are supposed to be wrong. Selling taxpaid
whisky out of the back door after liquor stores close is hardly in the
forefront of crimes which prevent citizens from leaving their barri-
caded homes. Vast numbers of police, as well as the additional services
of courts, are used in a continuing effort to enforce some vague
standard of morality upon the sexual activities in private of willing,
consenting adults.
The standard of public morality should not be enforced by police
and prosecutors, particularly where there is no victim who has been
wronged and who makes no complaint to police. ISIanifestly, if we
are to focus our resources and our attention on crime in the city
streets, as I have defined it, in our efforts to make our cities safe, then
we must remove victimless crime from the ambit of the criminal jus-
tice system. "Wliile I certainly do not, for example, condone the use
of marihuana by young people, if the wherewithal to wage war on
narcotic traffic is limited, then it would seem that police and prosecu-
tion efforts should be directed at halting the importation and distribu-
tion of hard drugs, such as heroin.
Perhaps the most essential ingredient in the criminal justice system
is public money, for it is the tax dollar which paj^s the bill. Police,
prosecutors, and by virtue of recent Supreme Court, rulings defense
attorneys, as well as judges and all supporting court personnel, and
the entire probation, corrections, and parole fimctions must be paid
for by public funds. The taxpayer is not a bottomless pit. Therefore,
priorities must be established in the use of such tax dollars. Only
through public understanding of the relationship of all parts of the
system, and their perspective limits, can such priorities be established
wisely.
Some examples may illustrate this thesis. Recently, Police Chief
Jerry Wilson, in testimony before this committee, attributed some 80
percent of the robberies in Washington to persons who were at the time
on some form of bond, probation, or parole. The implication is that
the courts, therefore, are responsible for 80 percent of the robberies.
Putting aside the fact that the police only solve one out of five re-
ported robberies, so that they could hardly know who committed the
remaining four out of five robberies, the statement highlights my
premise.
Included among court-released robbers are many for whom the
court many months earlier issued a bench warrant calling for their
immediate apprehension, arrest, and presentation to the court. Those
warrants, unfortunately, go unserved. The problem of failure to
lexecute bench warrants is one that plagues all city courts, and
in New York City, for example, the problem has reached monumental
proportions.
T^t me interject at this point. I don't wish to be rriticizinof Chief
Wilson unnecessarily. I think we Inave the finest chief of police that
any city could have and he has done an excellent job here. There has
been a lot of talk about whether or not crime has really been reduced in
1147
the District of Columbia. There lia\'e been lots of accusations about a
numbers game being played with the crime figures.
Mr. Chairman, a coujile of nights ago I rode with a police sergeant
in an unmarked car during the 3-to-ll p.m. shift, in the Third District,
which is supposed to be one of our high-crime areas. T was amazed at
the lack of calls that were coming over the police radio indicating
crimes being committed. It was quite an eye opener to me to find that
indeed the number of reported serious crime is way down in the Dis-
trict of Columbia.
Now, I think Chief Wilson deserves a lot of credit for that. I think
the Narcotic Treatment Administration under Dr. Robert DuPont
deserves a major amount of credit for that. And if I may not be ac-
cused of being a little too overzealous. on my own behalf, I think that
Chief Judge Greene and our court deserve a lot of credit.
However, in regard to this bench warrant problem, I think the
dynamics of the problem can best be illustrated by an actual case.
"^On October 20, 1972, one Julia E. Wade was arrested and presented
before a judge of our court. She was charged with having forged a
credit card sales slip in a local store. On the basis of the limited in-
formation presented to the court, she was released on third-party cus-
tody in accordance with the Bail Act provisions in the D.C. Code. She
appeared and was given a preliminary hearing 1 week later. Then on
November 1 she was indicted on five counts including burglary,
grand larceny, forgery and uttering.
The indictment was assigned to me for trial. However, on November
4 she was arrested on a city street and charged with a narcotics law
violation. The prosecutor, for no articulated reason, elected not to
prosecute and ordered her released. I was never notified of this fact.
Ultimately, she failed to appear before me on November 10 for arraign-
ment, and I issued a bench warrant for her immediate arrest and
presentation before the court. At about this time I was engaged in a
series of letter exchanges with the U.S. marshal, the U.S. attorney,
and the chief of police, as well as the bail agency, regarding an exces-
sive number of outstanding bench warrants in felony cases assigned to
me.
The result of that extended correspondence was essentially that none
of the parts of the system were willing to accept any responsibility for
the problem, and were instead earnestly attempting to shift the blame
to someone else. It developed that the police took the attitude that since
they had locked the people up once, they were not going to look for
them again, and suggested that the fault lay with the lenient courts
who erroneously released the defendants in the first place.
Of course, the court must follow the statutes, the eighth amendment,
and rely upon information furnished by the bail agency, the prosecu-
tors, the police, and other parts of the system. For some reason, the
prosecutors do not use the preventive detention provision which has
recently been put on the books. The U.S. marshal, a division of the
Department of Justice, is simply too understaffed and overworked to
serv^e bench warrants. Indeed, they are occasionally hard put just to
provide required se\aces in the courthouse.
The bail agency is nnderstaffed and underfinanced to the extent that
it cannot perform all of the functions assigned to it by statute. The
prosecutors and police are unable to provide enough information quick-
1148
ly enough to enable a judge to have adequate help in setting bond. In
short, the various statutory schemes exist, and provisions are made for
the performance of these various functions within the system, but when
push comes to shove, there is inadequate funding and staffing to carry
out the statutory mandate.
Consequently, all parts of the system, recognizing the seriousness
of the problem, and the bad image that disclosure of the extent of it
will create, busily engage themselves in blame shifting and justifica-
tion for inaction. Meanwhile, defendants w^io have been ordered ar-
rested and brought in through the issuance of bench warrants remain
at large. In Miss Wade's case, she remained at large until March 13,
1973, at which time, by her own alleged admission, she apparently rob-
bed one Houston businessman at gunpoint in the Mayflower Hotel, and
45 minutes later shot another Houston businessman to death in a park-
ing lot a block south of the "Washing-ton Hilton. She was ultimately
arrested for armed robberj^ and felony murder on ]\Iarch 26.
It belabors the obvious to say that if she had been sought out and
arrested during the 4 months the bench warrant was outstanding, a
murder and an armed robbery would not have occurred. It is also in-
teresting to note that the police solved the subsequent crimes, and tJion
located and arrested the woman in less than 2 weeks. It might not be
amiss to ask why that diligence was not applied to the bench warrant
case. I mention this to show that when the chief of police suggest? that
the lenient judges and prol)ation officers are responsible for releasing
j^ersons who commit 80 percent of the robberies, that figure does not
disclose how many of those persons had already been perceived a poten-
tial violator by the court or parole or probation officers, and for whom
a warrent had already been issued.
The large number of unserved warrants are an acute embarrassment
to any part of the system affected by them, but it does not ser^'e the
cause of reducing crime in the city streets to disclaim responsibility for
the problem while at tlie same time blamino- otliers. This type of blame
shifting numbers game that is played l:»y ]:>olice and others is but an-
other example of what I am talking about. I commend to you, in this
regard, a report of a Siibcommittee of the Criminal Justice Coordinat-
ing Board in the District of Columbia which deals particularly with
this situation of the "number game."
I have a copy of it, IVIr. Chairman, which I would tender to the com-
mittee for your convenience and for your infonnation.
Chairman PEPrER. We thank you for it. It will be included in our
record.
[The report referred to was retained in the committee files.]
Judge Halleck. Thank you.
There is no question but that we in the District of Columbia have
made major inroads in the crime situation. Yet, we must. I think, de-
vote more of our limited resources to attacking the type of serious crime
tliat occurs in the inner city streets, and less of it to victimless crimes,
and crimes at the. lower end of the spectrum of criminal itv. In tliis
comiection, I would heartily recommend a long delaved overhaul and
modernization of the District of Columbia Criminal Code, much a,=: the
President has called for such a modernization of the Federal Criminal
Code. Onlv in this way can we bring modern methods to bear on
realistic crime problems.
1149
I slionld like to close by takino-, oji belialf of the recentl}- reoro-anized
superior court and the District of Cohunbia Court of Appeals, a little
credit for some of the success in the fio-ht against crime here in Wash-
ington. I would commend to you the latest annual report of the courts
^Yhich discloses the current status of our calendars in spite of dramati-
cally increased caseloads.
Again, I brought an extra copy of it along, Mr. Chairman, which I
would provide for the committee at this time.
Chainnan Pepper. Thank you very much. We will put it in our files.
[The information above-referred to will be found in the committee
files.]
Xo greater force exists for effective crime conti-ol than prompt, fair,
and efficient justice. I only wish that as nnicli emphasis could be placed
upon the needs of corrections, for I am sure you will share my conceiii
with the paucity of viable alternatives for a sentencing judge who, as I
in 1972, sentenced 1,600 defendants after conviction of serious mis-
demeanors or felonies.
I might add, I am only one of 44 judges on our courts. My own case-
load in 1972 resulted in 1,600 sentences, carrying maximums of any-
where from a year to life.
Chairman Pepper. 1,600 cases?
Judge Halleck. 1,600 sentences, Mr. Chairman, not cases. Those
were convictions of individuals I had to sentence. Bear in mind, tliat is
more people than currently constitute the population of Lorton Peni-
tentiary. If I had sent everyone of them to jail for at least a year,
somebody would have had to build a second Lorton Penitentiary to ac-
commodate them. I don't think the general public realizes we just
simply can't put everybody in jail.
Mr. Chairman, our commitments are large, our resources limited, and
our satisfactions often seem insignificant. Only through realistically,
pragmatically reordered priorities which recognize the true nature of
the problem of crime in the city streets can we make meaningful pro-
gress. Hopefully, an enlightened and informed public, rather tlian a
propagandized electorate, will appreciate the true situation, and offer
its support to a unified and mutually supportive criminal justice
system.
That completes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I would
be only too happy to try and answer any questions which the commit-
tee might have.
Chairman Pepper. ]Mr. Winn, do you care to inquire ?
Mr. WiNN". I would like to pass at this time, Mr. Chairman, and
come back a little later, if I may.
Chairman Pepper. ]Mr. Steiger,
;Mr. Steiger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Your Honor. I think the chairman of the committee should know
that Judge Halleck married me.
Judge Halleck. No. I performed the wedding.
]\Ir. Steiger. My wife would be happy about that.
Chairman Pepper. That is one of the sentences that apparently
worked out A^ery well.
Judge Halleck. That is a life sentence with the possibility of
parole at any time.
1150
Mr. Steiger. I would like to know, because I know you are famous
for your candor, just what exactly has happened to you. There must
be something in this process of your tenure on the bench.
I view the statement in which you, I think, have properly pointed
out that the various elements of the criminal justice system are at
odds with one another. Then you go into a three-page detail in which
you point out that the courts are great and the U.S. marehal is mess-
ing up, and the prosecutors are fouling up, and if only everybody
would do what the courts are doing, we would be in good shape.
Nobody understands the need for self-aggrandizement any better
than the people in this body, and I don't dispute that, but for you
to belabor the victimless crime on the one hand — and I think you get a
lot of sympathy here — and in the same paragraph you refer to this
lady's, Miss Wade's, problem as either narcotic addiction or in-
volvement in some kind of narcotic offense.
Hard drugs has to come under the category of victimless crimes,
at least as far as the willing victim. You are not exempting, I gather,
the diligent prosecution of hard-drug traffic ?
Judge Halleck. No, indeed.
Mr. Steiger. Do you consider that part of the victimless crime
process ?
Judge Halleck. No, indeed, I do not, Congressman. I don't want to
be misunderstood in that connection.
It seems to me that we have seen a tremendous reduction in hard
drugs in the District of Columbia. We have seen a dramatic de-
crease in the amount of drug-related crime. Now, I attribute that to a
number of things. First of "all, I think the President's emphasis on
shutting off the importation of heroin and going after the major traf-
fickers is exactly what is needed. It doesn't solve the basic problem of
the importation of heroin into this country to walk up and down
the streets arresting every individual who has a small amount of
heroin for his own use.
All you are doing there is dealing with the ultimate symptoms. The
emphasis properly has been placed, in my view, for this administra-
tion, on shutting off the neck of the funnel. Now, when it comes to
heroin traffickers, persons that are dealing, importing, selling drugs, as
far as I am concerned those people deserve long-term sentences and
the serious concern of the prosecutors, the police, and the courts.
But what I am trying to say, Congressman, is that I am just not
sure that we have enough policemen and enough at our disposal to be
able to get after that serious part of the problem and at the same time
have dozens of undercover officers walking up and down Georgetown
trying to arrest every kid who is smoking a "joint." Because the kid
that is brought in for smoking a "joint" is going to take just as much
time and cost just as much in terms of bringing him through the sys-
tem, putting him to trial, and ultimately doing something with him in
the field of corrections, or parole, or probation, as a more serious seller
of heroin.
This is not to say that I condone for a moment the use of marihuana.
I don't.
Mr. Steiger. You made that clear.
Judge Halleck. But what I am saying is, it seems to me that if
we have a limited resource, as indeed we do. then we have to put it to
work on the more serious aspects of the problem.
1151
For example, luany, many cities spend perhaps a third or a lialf
of their i)olit'e ell'ort arresting* drunks, and yet they have major prob-
knns with robbery, burglary, auto theft, and crimes of that nature.
A\'hat I am trying to say — perhaps 1 Iiaven't made it clear — is that it
seems to mo the system itself ought to be focusing on robbery, burglary,
auto theft, housebreaking, bank robbery, things of that sort, where it
comes to having to make a determination as to where we put our effort.
yiv. Steiger. All right. You cite 1,600 sentences Avhich you accom-
plished in vour court in 197:2. How manv of those were the direct
result of plea bargaining with regard to the collaboration of the
prosecutor and the defense attorney and yourself ?
Judge IIallecic. Xone. I do not engage in plea bargaining and no
judge in my court does, to my knowledge.
Mr. Steiger. How many of those were the result of plea bargaining
between the prosecutor and defense attorney ?
Judge Halleck. Let's define what we mean by "plea bargaining.*'
Mr. Steiger. I would tell you my definition. Plea bargaining is
where the defense and the prosecutor agree on what the accused will
[)lead guilty to, and both agree, prosecutor agrees not to offer whatever
other cliarges might be pending against the accused and the defense
counsel accepts that agreement. That is my definition of plea
bargaining.
Judge Halleck. "Well, on that basis, a number of them come up
that way and I will come back to that.
The reason I asked you what you mean by plea bargaining is this :
?klany people are under the impression that plea bargaining involves
Avliat is done in other major cities, New York, for one, that I am told,
or at least I am told exists there, and this is where some arrangement
is made about what the sentence is going to be.
There was an interesting survey done under the auspices of LEAA
in Co]inecticut. in which prisoners were interviewed e:!d:ensively about
what their impressions were of the criminal justice system. And in
Connecticut, in the New Haven area, the major impression that the
prisoners gave was that the judge was nothing more than a rubber
stamp for the prosecutor.
Now. liopefully, in my court, and throughout the District of Co-
lumbia coui-ts, that cannot be said. There are numbers of instances in
which a defendant pleads to one or two cliarges and others are dis-
missed. I^t me give you an example.
The prosecutor gets someone charged with stealing an automobile
in the District of Columbia. That is essentially unauthorized use of a
motor vehicle. He is caught driving down the street in somebody else's
car l>v the police and he is removed from it, and he is brought in. T'n-
authorized use of a motor vehicle in the District of Columbia — and I
might say, all provisions of the District of Columbia Code are passed
by Congress, so if they are not right, I guess this is the place to go to
change them — is a 5-year felony.
The indictment comes down, thev cliarjic the man with unauthorized
use of a motor vehicle, receiving stolen property, and grand larceny.
They have three counts in the indictment. The actual crime is unauthor-
ized use.
In many instances, individuals are overindicted in just that fashion.
I v.ould suggest that one of the reasons is that it makes it possible for
the prosecutor to go to the defendant and his attorney and say, ''Look,
95-158— 73— pt. 3 13
1152
if you plead to iinautliorized use, vre T\ill drop those other two
charges."
Xow, those other two charges are unrealistic anyway. In the first
instance, you can't be guilty of receiving stolen property and stealing
it. It has got to be one or the other. So that is essentially no deal at all.
But the defendant is not quite so sophisticated enough frequently to
understand that. So he ultimately winds up pleading to unauthorized
use and tAvo counts are dismissed.
Mr. Stp:iger. Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I under-
stand what you are saying. I think for our purposes, it would help if
we had some kind of ciuantitative look at this. Of the 1,600 sentences
you imposed, how many were the result of a guilty plea ?
Forget ])lea bargaining, since you really have no way of knowing
actually how many of those were the result of agreement. How many
were the result of a guilty plea ?
Judge Halleck. I can only give you the figures for the 6-month pe-
riod when I served in felony court. The vast majority of those 1,600
Mere misdemeanors because I sat in misdemeanor court for a long pe-
riod of time; and those involved sentences where the sentence could be
any time from 1 to 3 years.
As to the feloiiy court assignment, I recently finished a 6-month as-
signment. I cleared 270 felony cases in 6 months. That is just about
the numbei- that got sent to me. In other words, I was keeping even. I
M'as making a little inroad because I had a somewhat larger caseload
turned ov(U- to me than I turned over to the next judge. But essentially,
that is about keeping even.
Of that 270 cases, exactly 27 went to jury trial. That is one out of
10 cases and that comports with about the average throughout the
country. It is my understanding that at one point, Eamsey Clark,
when iie was Attorney General, made some surveys and he was on a
television program up in Boston one time with me and used the figures
that throughout the Federal System about 90 percent of the cases were
disposed of by pleas of guilty.
Mr. Steiger. ok. Excuse me. You will be interested to know that
also corresponds to the national average for disposal of felony matters
in State courts also. All right.
Xow, given that understanding, recognizing that
Judge Halleck. May I interrupt? Of those 270 cases, 175 pled
guilty.
Mr. Steiger. You have 27 that went to jury, 175 were guilty pleas,
which would bring us up to 202. AVliat happened to the other 68, or
whatever it was ?
Judge Halleck. There were about 10 nonjury trials in there ancl the
balance of the cases were disposed of either by some sort of dismissal
by the jorosecutor or the court.
Mr. Steiger. All right. Kecognizing tlmt — and your experience is
in keeping with the national average — recognizing those 175 guilty
pleas, it is only realistic to assume there was some discussion between
the prosecutor and defense. It is not reasonable to assume there wasn't.
We had some eloquent testimony here yesterday as to the mechanics of
plea bargaining. It becomes very obvious that without it the breakdown
in the system would be fantastic. The caseload would be prohibitive.
From your experience and recognizing you are as equally concerned
about the causes of crime and the social implications as you are with
1,153
the victim and tlie criminal himself— you havo .Icmoiistrat.xl that
amply over the last 4 or o yeai-s— witli tliat in mind, do vou feel that an
orderly system of plea bargaining, whereby all of the plea bai-ainiiiff
was laid on the table .vhere the court was consulted after the prosecu"
tion and the defense had reached an acrreement, and the court was privy
to ail ol tJie facts m the matter ])rivately, and the plea baruaininir was a
matter of record, and included in the plea bargainincr then would bo
sentence bargamino:, do you feel that that would be useful? Would it
constitute .pustice ? What would your reaction be to a formal i)r()cedure
on Inf '^ T""^ ''l'"-^'"^/ ^" "''"'>' ^^"^■^^' ^oth Federal and State, at least
an mlormal practice ?
Judge Halleck I believe that the plea bargaining aspect of it, as
^vniioii^rf "!'"'! '^- ''''\^'^ ^" '^^ "^^ ^^'^ ^■^^«^^- "^- «^'^-^^^' ^o be at least
available to the ]udge and he ought to know about it.
Mr braiGER. Was it in the 175 guilty pleas ?
Judge Halleck. Yes. As a mattel- of fact, we have -in our system
Jhat we call "status calls" in which the prosecutor and the defense are
called in before the ;udge. In felony court, the cases are assi<rned to us
lor ail purposes. It is an individual calendar system. What I do is call
m the prosecutor and the defense lawyer in open court, in a stat s
ant Sr/h/ 'T/''i ■\'''- F-'^^T^hi"^ ^^^^ the record. And the defciuU
r^sp.nll! Vf^ n^"'^' ?°'''^ >^r ""^^ ^^'^' prosecutor, "What is your
case all about ? Tell me what you have got " . •
isyZti^:^::^ ^^"^"^' ^'"^''^^ '' ^-- opinion on'tiiis? What
wlritl" Tlf'l^T' "^^'' ^'""1' ''''}}\''^ ^^ P^^-'^d ^« anything and, if so,
Vi^L^.Z f ^^'^ ,T>lo^^'Mtov, "Are you willing to take a plea to
anvxningand,itso, what?" .
hp?^7' many times you get a situation in whicli there may be a num-
thl ^!^ ""^ ''\ ^^'"^ "iclictment, one or two of which are Socked" and
the othei^ may be questionable. All of that is ri^ht on the ivecorcl Ad
to a certain extent, I participate in that, in that I malL'tTie pirt es
tabniudi llf"^ "f therein front of me, put it right out'ont^^:
comes a plea! ^""^ "" ^ "' '" "'''^ ''"'"• ^"^ ^^" ^^'''^ ^^^'^quently
acth^whoi^r* ^'^^}^''^ *•''''* "^ J''^'^-^ ^"-^^<^ ^^ ^^^'^e ^^ «^^^t iuncture'ex-
SX n '^'"'' '' ^"^^"^ ^° ^'' ^^^^^ ^^ f'-^r ^^ t^i''^fc P^^^'^^ of plea
baigainmg goes, my own personal view is I am not for it.
wwi^^^ ^onrt when the individual defendant gets ready to plead to
W he'ii 'I'^'^r^r^^^'^ -^"^1 the defense lawyer agreed is an of-
W nf ^f "^ t^.Pi^/'^d to It m the indictment when he plead, in
Lf have tpnTtl i' '^- ""^ ^" V". '^'^ ^^^^^'^ '^^'^ ^^« "^«tter what
promiselafe f^ ^^'"^ by anybody, I have made no deals and no
vears 90 ^i^ / '"""^T'' ^'' "''^^™'"" P^^'-^lty is ".r". perhaf.s 10
■ bout' ft St '' ^.-l^^'^tever it may be. And I haven^t made any deals
looTintVTil ?. ^'''''^1^ ^^^ f probation report and I am <roinir to
o be f b on iT ';;- T'l ^^^ °".^>^ ^^""^ ^ ^'-^^^ P^«^is« ^'«" is I wintry
to be fair and I will look into it and find out about you and find out
nlSrl^ ^f. the ways that works is that I had a young man in my court
clTr^.^ ^V"" ^'^"^ T^^' ""! '"^^^^^ ^-"^^^^T «^^t of'about six- or eio"it
t abu urA'ntlf r^f ^thought that lie was going to .^t a brealc. I made
It abmidantly clear to him at the outset, the maximum penalty was life
1154
and as far as I was concerned he would get any wliere from a suspended
sontenc-e to life and I wasn't making any deals.
He wound up getting the first life sentence from me that was handed
down in the superior court.
When I looked into the matter and found out about his long history
of institutionalization, followed by armed robbery followed by more
institutionalization, followed by more armed robbeiies, I made the
conclusion in my own mind, as the sentencing judge, that here is an
individual that has become an institutional problem. I gave him 15
years to life. That leaves it up to the parole and corrections department
when he reaches a state when Ire may be safely released back in tlie
community in some fashion.
Mr. Steiger. Be eligible for parole in 5 years; is that correct?
Judge HAiiECK. I don't believe so.
Mr. Steiger. A third of a minimum.
I yield to the gentleman from New York.
I want to say at the ontset, if your statement was restricted to what
was written, I certainly support it. The plea bargaining is always such
an intriguing contract to me, that, when you say you don't make a deal,
you make that clear to the defendant, that you are not making any
promises to him, reminds me of something I heard the other night when
they said, "I take full responsibility for whatever happened, but I am
just not a part of it."
Judge Halleck. You don't want me to comment on that, do you ?
Mr. Raxgel. No; but somewhere along the line you are assuming
this defendant has been talking with the prosecutor through his
lawyer.
Judge Halleck. I know he has.
Mr. Rangel. And they have talked with you.
Judge Halleck, No; I make them do that on the record. Nobody
comes in and talks to me individually.
Mr. Raxgel. On the record, but the defendant wasn't there.
Judge Halleck. He is there. He is standing right there beside his
lawyer.
Mv. Raxgel. If you don't make any deal and the defendant comes
in with the possibility of facing 20 years, what possible incentive would
he have to plead guilty rather than take the risk that the prosecutor
or the State may not, whatever you call it. the district attoi-ney may not
be able to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? He alwaj'S has
that going for him.
Now, when he comes before you, what are you offering him so that
he should not take his gamble before the jury ?
Judge Halleck. A fair shake.
Mr. Raxgel. Well, sometimes that is not what the defendant wants.
Judge Halleck. I understand that. But you see, in a lot of instances
the prosecution case is so strong there is no question about it. You take
somebody who is in an unauthorized use of an automobile case. The
police get him driving down the street after a chase and they get him
out of the car and it has been hot wired. There is no defense. It is an
open-and-shut matter. There is no question about it.
Mr. Raxgel. I am in total agreement with you, Judge. Confession,
eyewitnesses, everything, he comes to you; there is a maximum of
20 years. And you tell him, "No deal."
judge Halleck. Well
1155
]Mr. Haxgel. lie knows that with 12 jurors, there just might be a psy-
chotic, sympathetic nieniber of that jury and he has got his ''deal"
and he walks away.
Judge Halleck. The only thing I can say to you is it doesn't happen
that way.
When I was defending, and foi- a long time after I left the })rose-
cutor's office and came on the IkmicIi, one of the things I did as a pri\ate
lawyer was to defend a great many people charged with crune. liack
in those days we got assiirneil hv the court to do it and we didn't iiet
paid anything. We w(-re out of pocket for all expenses. There was no
money involved.
The thing has gotten so vast now tliat the (Criminal Justice .Vet has
uiulertaken to furnish counsel for indigent defendants and at tiiis
point, perha])S I sliould make a plug somewhere along the line for the
Criminal Justice Act I'unds or some comparable funds for the District
of Columbia.
If we don't have decent, irood lawyers, young lawyers, being ijaicl
to come in and defend people, we are going to shut down. Because the
Supreme ( 'oiut has placed such a tremendous burden now on the court
system to provide counsel for every defendant and we don't have them
available and they can't be paid, they just simply won't come down and
we will be in real trouble.
Mr. Kan(;kl. Was that the local system or that Federal courts would
not release the money available to them ^
rludge Halleck. Xo. The problem is there is some belief that the
Federal Criminal Justice Act no longer is going to apply to the Dis-
trict of Columbia, to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Xow. if that is so then Congress has got to appropriate special funds
for it; it has got to be put into the District budget; it has got to come
from someplace. And if it doesn't the oidy thing I can say to you is
the court is going to be in real trouble.
As Congressman Steiger was talking about, if we don't get pleas, we
break down. If you can imagine, in order for me just to keep current,
I tiied to a jury about — well, just exactly 10 percent of the cases that
came before me. If I had to try oO percent of the cases, I would be in
real difficulty because I was getting indictments at the rate of 9, 10, 1*2
a week.
Mr. Steioei;. Charlie, I am going to take back my time for just a
second.
I am not going to debate you on the propriety of the sentence being
involved in the plea bargaining. I nuist tell you I share Mr. Iiaugel's
view that a ]>rosecutor who bargains without any basis of sentence isn't
really bargaining at all. So we are saying on the one hand that the plea
bargaining is valid, but on the other hand we are not going to sup[)ort
it. But, obviousl}', we asked for your view.
What I do Avant to know specifically is the manner in which you
have these pretrial sessions on the record. Is that a matter of your own
discretion, a policy of this court, or a matter of law^ ?
Judge Halleck. I would say that there is a basic policy of the court
embodied in our rules in\olving the status calls, and to a certain extent
it is within the discretion of the judge in what manner he wants to
handle that.
Mr. Stei(;ei;. Do all members of this bencli handle them the same
wa v i
1156
Judge Hai.ijeck. I dorrt know. I never sat in anylx)dy's court but
my own, Congressman, and that is one of the difficulties.'
Mr. Stkiger. You don't know how the others handle it ?
Judge Haij.eck. I suspect Mr. Work can give you a better answer
tlian I can. I think basically they are.
Mr. Steiger, But you never discussed it with other members of the
court ?
Judge IIalleck. Yes ; but not in that much detail. As far as I know,
in the felony branches of our court, where the judge sits in felony, by
and large they are handled pretty much the same way. It may vary
a little bit.
Mr. SiT.iGER. Some judges may get involved in sentence bargaining?
Judge Halleck. I don't think anyl)ody gets involved in sentence
bargaining. Some judges will simply ask whether or not there is going
to be a ]^lea in this case and if the answer is no. they set it down for
trial.^ When tliat happens, we just get further and further behind.
The judge has to, it seems to me personally, become involved to a cer-
tain extent in order to keep the thing moving.
Let me tell you this, and it may answer both of you in terms of this
question about ])lea bargaining. You may get somebody that is charged
with armed robbery and he may be allowed to plead to robbery instead
of armed robbery. The difference is the maximum penalty becomes 15
years instead of life. And that, I suppose, really gets down to a ques-
tion of wliether there is any value in having a maximum i-)enalty of
1 i f e avail ab1 c in so many cases.
You know, every offense now in tlie District of Columbia where the
individual perpetrating it — serious felony cases, almost all of them —
has in his possession or available to him. closely available to him, a gun
or other dangerous weapon : it is not limited to gims. It could be knives,
blackjacks, clubs, all manner of things. He can be charged with an
armed otTouse. For committing a crime of violence while armed with
a weapon, that puts the penalty up to life. If he is a third-time felon,
or in other words, if he has been convicted twice before of a felony, he
mny be subject to life imprisonment.
I will p:\ye you an example of how al)surd this can be. We had a felon
convicted a couple of times before of minor felonies, unauthorized use
or grand larceny of $120 in amount, something of that nature, and he
f![ot^ invoh'cd at a hotel with an impaid bill that grew out of some sort
of party they had and he apparently got stuck with it and didn't pay
it. He got charoed with unpaid board bill over $100, a felony, and the
U.S. attorney filed life papers on him for that.
Mr. Stetger. Of course, the chances of that man receiving a life sen-
tence are slim or none.
Judce Haeleck. Cono^ressman. what it comes down to, I suppose, is
this : You asked me earlier what had happened to me.
Mr. Stetger. Yes. I really would like to know.
Judge IlAEEErK. Let me tell you.
Mr. Steiger. He used to be tough.
Mr. E angel. He looks pretty tough to me.
Mr. v^TETGER. Defendants fight for him.
Judge Halleck. You see, after you have l)een around there awhile,
you begin to see people coming back. You be<?in to wonder what you
are doing, and why. You begin to learn a little something about cor-
rections and about a lot of the problems of criminology and penolog^^
1157
You know, it is an interesting thing. Yon get to be a judge without
any background or Icnowledge in those aifaii's. I was an economics
major at Williams College. I was in the Navy for 4 year-s. I studied
law under the Case Book metliod. no pi-actical experience. I went up
and practiced law. did a lot of court of claims work, workmen's com-
pensation work, some criminal work, a variety of things like that.
Then I came on the bench. I started out with this "Get tough, law
and order" approach.
Then I began to read and to look at the people, to go down to the
jails myself. I spent a couple of days down there during a conference,
locked up in Lorton as a privSoner. T have gone around to tlie various
institutions that I send people to and looked to see what it is they are
doing and what is happening.
You begin to realize that the vast majority of people that you have
to sentence, if you send them to jail, are within a reasonable period of
time going to come back into the community. Long felony sentences,
in my personal view, ought to be reserved for perhaps 10 percent of
those people that come before us. who in essence really deserve it, who
becouie. if you will, institutional cases. The others ought to have an
option of serving a certain amount of time and then, within the De-
partment of Corrections or the Board of Parole, becoming ultimately
eligible, as they demonstrate their ability to conform, ought to become
eligible to come back into the community under some sort of super-
^'ision. with that Sword of Damocles of backup time hanging over
their head, if you will, but with the option to reintegrate into the
community.
^fy idea about corrections is what we really are doing is trying to
socialize, not in the political sense, but in the sociological sense, to try
and socialize these people we send down there. In essence, that is what
probation is all about, what parole is all about, what correction itself
is all about. The vast majority that get into difficulty need that kind
of approach.
T think the President himself has indicated that in recent speeches
he has made, in indicating that we have to put new emphasis on cor-
rections. The President spoke favorably about rehabilitation. That is
a convenient word ; although I don't like it because it presumes a piior
state of habilitation vou are trvinff to recreate, and in manv instances
the people coming before me simply never had it in the fii-st place.
If somebody comes in. for example, charged with armed i-obbery.
rnd he could get life and he pleads to ro])1)ery and he gets 1.") yea is, if
I give him, for example. 3 to 15 years that doesn't mean that lie is beinc
tui-ned right back out on the street. '^'^Hiat that does, in essence, is shift
a certain amount of tlie responsibility ultimately o^'er that indi^'idual
to people that are much lictter equipped to judge him, to determine
wlien he is rehabilitated and when he is able to go back in the street.
The function is shifted to parole boards and departments of correc-
tion, which ho])e fully are sufficiently staffed and sufficiently well paid
so they have good people there doing the pi-oper job.
It seems incongruous to me that a judge at a given instance should
look at somebody and say.
Well. Mr. Offender. I realize the rehabilitation is what we are after and I rec-
ognize all of these things you are np for. and I decide right now, based on no
experience on my part in these fields, except just a gut reaction or a hunch. I
recognize right now and I am telling you it is going to take you at least 10 years
to get yourself together and 30 j oars at the maximum.
1158
Xow, I just don't believe that I am equipped to do that.
Sentencing is a very, very difficult thing for a judge. What most
people don't realize is about 90 percent of our time, 90 percent of tlie
cases we deal with, the most importani decision we have to make is
sentencing. We have to deal witli people's lives.
There are a number of things that are supposed to go into that equa-
tion. Punishment, deterrent effect, rehabilitation. Those are the three
major categories.
Punishment is viable and in many instances very definitely enters
into the picture. The question gets to be how much should the punish-
ment be — 50 years or 2 years ? Most of the investigators and the writers
on the subject indicate that the punishment aspect of it reaches about
its maximum effect after 2 years, give or take. You put somebody in
jail for much more than that and the whole punishment idea is over
and done with and all you do then is turn him around and I'cally tuin
him against society, so ultimately when you let him out he is going
to be 10 times worse then when you put liim in.
If we are going to accept the idea tliere is a deterrent effect, then
I think we ought, i-ealistically. to look at who it is we are trying to deter
and how we are trying to do it. Street crimes, the major street crimes
that people are really afraid of, crimes in the streets, if you will, are
committed by the individuals within the imier city who generally are
in a milieu that involves a lot of criminal activity of one sort or an-
other, antisocial activity.
Take robbery in the District of Columbia. Four out of five of them
go undetected.
Mr. Steiger. Unreported.
Judge Halleck, Well, I am talking about the reported ones. There
may be a lot more that are unreported, so the average is way down.
But the young fellow out on the street knows that he has maybe only a
lo-percent chance of ever being arrested for a robbery if he commits it.
I am a little bit reminded — it may be an Apocryphal story, I don't
know — I heard this many times. Just before the troops went over to
Normandy to land on Omaha Beach there were some speeches given by
senior officers. At one time, one of the generals, addressing some of the
troops just before they left, indicated to them that one out of three
of you soldiers will be dead by the time this operation is over. Another
one out of thi-ee of you will be wounded and only one cut of three of you
will come through unscathed. At which po'nxt every man in the line
turned to the fellow on his right and the fellow on his left and said,
"I am sorry about you two."
I suspect the same sort of approach goes on in the street. Nobody
commits a crime expecting he is going to be caught. So when we talk
about deterrent effect, you have to recognize right away the people we
are trying to deter have a better idea than we do about how many
people are doing it and getting away with it. So right away the idea
crops up into his mind, "It doesn't really make any difference that
Willie got 40 years for that the other day, Ijecause if I do it they are
not going to catch me anyway."
So that comes into the equation.
The other factor is this : It doesn't do any good if I belt some defend-
ant w^ith a real severe sentence, hoping it is going to deter others, if
others don't know about it. Hundreds and hundreds of sentences, thou-
sands of sentences get handed down in the courts every year, and no-
1159
body knows what they are, unless you are actively engaged in it or
make some survey or some efforts to find out. So it seems to me that
unless there is some real publication and wide dissemination of the fact
that so-and-so got a stiff sentence and a tongue lashing from the judge,
the deterrent effex^t may be somewhat suspect.
I am not suggesting there isn't a deterrent effect. But I would sug-
gest to you that the greater deterrent is tlie prompt apprehension,
prompt trial, and in the case of the guilty, i)rom]:)t conviction.
Now, we have come to that point here in the District of Columbia.
"We have come to it in large measure because the vast number of the
f-rimijial cases that come in are disposed of in some way other than by
trial. The reason we now have all of these cases is because it was as-
sumed that our Superior Court is going to be able to move them more
expeditiously than the I^.S district court did. The district court got to
the ])oint where they wei'e a year and a half behind in trying people.
"We can try them for a felony within G weeks after indictment.
Somebody Avho is apprehended by the police, brought in, indicted
lu'omptly. tried promptly and sentenced, it seems to me, is going to be
an example tliat will serve as a much greater deterrent than the in-
dividual who is the one out of five who gets caught and brought into
rourt. and then walks around on the street for a couple of years before
his cnse comes to trial.
I can't think of anything worse in terms of deterrent effect, or any
worse spectacle that the criminal justice system ever got involved in,
than wlien 13 years after the fact they ultimately executed Caryl Chess-
man. It just made no sense to me as an individual. And I can imagine
the deterrent effect of that, whatever it may have been, was so far re-
moved from the offense that by the time they executed him that nobody
remembered what it was he had done.
I don't know whether I have answered your question or not, Mr.
Steiger.
Mr. Steiger. I think I appreciate the depth of both the question and
the answer. I would hope some of my colleagues would get into the bail
bond situation here, but I have been monopolizing a lot of time, Mr.
Chairman.
I thank you for your indulgence.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Rangel.
^h'. IvAXGEL. Judge, you probably will never make it, because you
just make too much commonsense about the whole thing.
I think a pi'oblem that we face — and I say this as a lawyer and
foi-mer Federal prosecutor— is that in dealing with the social ])roblems
there are such strong traditional barriers. Just as you say. '*5s^o deal."
I can understand now in listening to you talk, and listening to my col-
league, that there would be no need for any hiwyer to ask for a deal
when you have displayed a sense of fairness and justice that is truly
equitai)le.
But when you say that your prisoners have such an attitude about
justice so tliat they feel that the courts aj*e just a rubber stamp for the
prosecutor's office, to a certain degree, as far as a layman is concerned,
they ai-e riglit and it is so. Judges sometimes in the State of Xew York
are forced to lie. They force the defendant to conunit i:)erjurv. If some-
one pleads guilty to a lesser crime, there is nothing Avrong in saying
some type of "deal" has been made. Not an illegal deal, not a suppres-
sive deal.
1160
Obviously, the district attorney has laid out his case and persuaded
the defendant that he should plead ofuilty to a lesser crime and he was
persuaded to do it because he is guilty of the crime.
We have in New York judges asking defendants whether or not
anyone promised them anything. And the defendant looks to his
lawyer, whether he has been appointed or not, and the lawyer tells
him, "No." Seldom, far more seldom than I can understand, the de-
fendant doesn't say. "What in the heck are you talking about ? Why am
I pleading guilty if you haven't arranged something for me, rather
tha n a 1 i f e or 15-year sentence ? "
. I do hope, I guess I am not asking you a question, that from this
committee we will have the opportunitv to talk Avith people like you
and we might be able to find some vehicle to disseminate this type of
information, to bring all parts of law enforcement together. The
lawyers are still talking Latin to each other. To walk into a New York
City criminal couit niid hear a defendant pleading one of his rights
is absolutely ridiculous.
I have been very impressed with your testimony before this commit-
tee. I hope that it is representative of the judges here in the District of
Columbia. I aa-ouUI like to say I am a member of the D.C. Committee
and we did have eloquent testimony as to Avhat the cutoff of these funds
for the defense counsel would mean. That committee is aware of what
the effect of it would have on the judicial system generally.
I want to thank you for taking time out and coming here. I don't
knoAv whether we need a lot of laAvyers on the bench or whether judges
have to really apply the old common law traditions. I think society
has changed and per-haps we are a little behind lawmakers as well as
those who interpret the laws.
Again, thank you for coming.
Judge Hallf.ck. If I might make one comment to what you said.
Before I take a plea from anybody. I don't ask him whether he did
it. I say, "Tell me vrhat happened," and I have him tell me in his
OAV]i words — and I won't let his laAvyer interrupt him. I have him tell
me in his own words what he did. on the record. And on the basis of
that, on the record. I can then make a judgment as to whether or not
what he is telling me constitutes the elements of the offense to which
he is pleading guilty. I will not take a plea from anybody who has not
committed the offense to which he is pleading guilty. I do not allow
him just simply to admit. "Yes. I did it." Instead, I have him tell
me what the facts were and what is involved.
I think that is generally the case with most of the judges in our
courts.
Mr. Rax(;t:l. It protects the court from further appeals.
Judge Halleck. Yes.
Mr. Steiger. Would the gentleman yield ?
]\rr. Raxgel. Yes.
Mr. Stetger. Do you address the interrogatoi-y before you accept a
guilty plea and before you pass sentence? Do you investigate the
interrogatory — have you been promised anything in exchange for
the guilty plea ?
IIGI
Judge Halleck. Yes. I genernlly ]n\t it tliis way and I don't go
througli a lot of formal rote and it gets me in trouble sometimes be-
cause 1 guess some people think I am not formal enough to be a judge.
But in some respects it seems to nie that the defendant and the people
in the court system really don't understand it when, as the Congress-
man indicates, Ave talk Latin to each other. ' - '■!> ■"
I will generally say to the defendant something along these lines :
That I want you to understand tbat you are pleading guilty to this particular
offense. I haven't made any deals about what the sentence is going to be. It can
In', anything from suspended sentence up to the maximum, which is so-and-so.
And no matter what may have been told you. whether your lawyer or anybody
else has told you I made any promise about what kind of sentence you are going
to get. I want you to imder.stand right now that I have not, and I will try to be
as fair with you as I can. I will get a probation report, Jmt I am not going to
make any deal about the sentence.
I make that clear before I accept the plea and if he has any problem
about it he can back olf .
^h\ Steiger. Do yon ask him. then, if lie has received any promises of
anything, or received anything — I have forgotten the ritual.
Judge Halleck. There is some question by rote asked him — have
you been made an}' promises; have j'ou been coerced into a plea; and
that sort of thing.
Mr. Steiger. Do vou address that, or something like tliat !
Judge Halleck. Generalh^, I try to cover it.
yh\ Steiger. Do vou accept the answer when he savs, "No,
I haven't"?
Judge Halleck. I don't want to put liim in a position of having to
lie to me.
Mr. Steiger. It is so obvious because you laiow here is a guy with
five counts, pleading guilty to one and regardless, whether there has
l^een a deal on sentence, there is a deal to drop the other four. You laiow
it and he knows it.
Judge Halleck. I generally tell it to him. I say, "You are being
allowed to plead guilty to one charge. The maximum jienalty to that
is 10 years, 15 years. If you went to trial and were comicted. the max-
imum could be 10 years on each of four counts."
A lot of times, the rule of leniency applies and there are many in-
stances Avhere tlie sentence has to be concurrent. I believe the Supreme
Court came down in one case, where a man pointed a shotgun at several
Federal officers in a car. He was charged with assault Avith a deadly
weapon on a Federal agent as to each individual in the car. When it
came down to sentencing, he was given a series of consecutive sen-
tences, and the court ruled, "No, one act, one sentence," whatever the
act is.
You may pile un a lot of different counts on the indictment but in es-
sence what the individual has done is commit one particular act which
is criminal in nature, and he is entitled to be sentenced to something
for that act, not have it piled up on top of them. Tliat enters into it
sometimes.
]Mr. Steiger. The thing that concerns me is the necessity, as I get it
under case law, for the judge, in oixler to protect the court record, to
ask for and receive some assurance fi-om the defendant that he wasn't
given anything in exchange for his guilty plea.
1162
The king with no clotlies. Do you tliink we should retain that as a
matter of case law or simply a matter of practice and, if not, what is
the remedy for it ?
Judge Hallf.ck. I think what we ought to do is be perfectly frank
and honest with the defendant and witli the system. In other words,
the judge knows that the man is pleading guilty to one count oi- an-
other count and they are dropping other counts. It ought to be right
on the record and the judge ought to tell the defendant, "I recognize
this is what is happening and to that extent there is a benefit to you.""
At the same time, there is a benefit to the prosecution in your entering
the plea of guilty, because, as the Congressman points out. some
])Svchotic on the jury might turn him loose.
Lightning always strikes. When I was a defense counsel, I never ]iled
to the indictment because I figured that was the worst they could
convict my man on. So in oixler to plead, you have to get a little
souiething.
Quite frankly, and to be i)erfectly pi-aginatic al>out it, we just siui})ly
cannot provide a jury trial for evenbody in the court system. We have
got to have dispositions in order to make it work.
Chairman Pepper. Judge. a])parently you are making the distinction
that was >nade here yesterday by an outstandinjjf ])rosecutor in the
country. Mr. Busch from Los Angeles County in California, with 400-
odd lav.'vei-s in his office, a po]mlation of 7 million ];eople. He em-
phasized the difference l)etween plea bargaining and sentenc^^ bar-
gaining. That he would not ])articipate in sentence bargaining, but
he would participate in plea bargaining. It does, as you suggest, allow
the defendant to plead guilty once instead of three times, with the
knowledge that he would not be ])rosecuted or liehl responsible on
those other tvro counts.
So you do appai-ently take that into account :
Yoii pleaded guilty on eonnt 1. let's say. There are two oflier omils. but I want
you to know that the law provides yon could he sj-nteiiced from 1 to li) years
on count 1. and while we are going to accept your ple-i to count 1 and the ])rose-
cuting attorney advises the court that upon your plea of guilty on count 1
he dismisj-es counts 2 and 8: T want you clearly to understand that it is uj) to
the court to determine your sentence, which may he under the law from 1 to 1."
years as your punishment for pleading guilty to count 1.
If: that pl^out what the i>osition is you take ?
Judge Halt,eck. ^'es. sii-; very (U^ftnitely. There is one other thing.
]Mr. Raxget.. Would you yield {
In the criminal courts I have been everything except a defendant, and
that may come, too. But I think it is safe to say that when one is ar-
rested, and we get away from the myth about your iimoceitce until
proven guilty, there is a feeling the man is going to go to jail.
You know. I don't care how the judge handles it or how his lawyei-
handles it. and I am not narticularly concerned whether you reduce
the charges or reindict or file a new complaint.
If. in fact, my maximum sentence under the indictment is 20 years,
and I come before the judge with a maximum sentence of 5 years, my
sentence has been bargained.
Judge Halleck. That is true. But here is another thing about it.
]\Iany times you will get a man that is indicted, for example, for four
or five different robberies. There will be three or four different armed
counts and a lot of lesser counts on down the line. He may plead,
11G3
out of !i 2()-couiit iiKlictiiicut. to Olio ainicd coimt. Tluit is a bio- deal
I'oi- liini. liut, by tlio same token, if lie pleads to one anned count, his
luaxiniuni sentence in the District of Columbia could be life imprison-
ment. It doesn't matter if he has jL'ot Ta other counts behind it. life is
the most 1 can o'ive him.
Thei-e is only one — and 1 mioht bring- this to your attention since
you are on tlie District Committee and maybe you can do something
;d)out it — tliere is one flaw in our code. "Accessory after the fact" is
still retained as a separate otlense. "Accessory before the fact" becomes
a principal. But accessory after the fact is a separate offense and the
punishment for tliat is one-half of the maximum sentence the prin-
cipal offender could have received.
We have got a host of crimes in the District of Columbia for which
the principal offender can receive life. How do I tell somebody who
pleads guilty, as I had a young lady plead guilty to me to accessory
after tlie fact to an attempted armed robbery, and attempted armed
robbery carries a maximum of life for a felon. She pled guilty and
there I Avas trying to tell her Avhat the maximum penalty would be.
In that case, I choked.
It suddenly dawned on me tlie maximum penalty is one-half the life
of this other fellow. If we put them together, she may kill him and
walk out.
It was a veiy unusual situation. I pondered a bit as to how you
could go ahead and put that kind of sentence in. An indeterminate
sentence up to one-half of somebody's life — I would like to be a defense
lawyer and file a habeas corpus. You would have her out in a minute.
I resolved it by sentencing her under the Youth Corrections Act on
an indeterminate sentence up to G years, really not counted as prison
time.
That is something, perliaps as a lawyer and on the District Com-
mittee, 3'ou might look into. It seems to me w-e ought to have the
maximum penalt}' not to exceed 10 years for accessory after the fact.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Winn?
Mr. Wixx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have two questions. Judge, you pointed out the fact that you gave
the court credit for reduction of the use of hard druas and druir-
related crimes.
Judge Halleck. I gave the Narcotics Treatment Administration and
the Chief of Police and the President's program to combat the im-
portation of drugs into the country the credit.
}Jr. AVrxx. I see. I misunderstood 3'ou. Along that line, you did
make a statement which we have all have heard many times. I heard it
again Monday night from my chamber of commerce people when they
were here for their meeting this week. They were afraid to go out at
night and two of the women were actually afraid to come up on the
Hill to see Congress in action.
Judge Halleck, What I am trying to say in my prepared state-
ment, Mr. Congi-essman, is tliis. You liavo to examine clearly what it
is they are afraid of and what, realistically, they are afraid of. You
know, murder is not one of those crimes that ought realistically to be
something you are afraid of, because 75 percent of the murders are
committed in somebody's house between family members and friends.
It isn't .something that occurs between strangers.
1164
A very large iiimiber of rapes, it turns out, are committed by that
same sort of relationsliip grouping.
But the problem is the pocketbook snatch; it is robbery; it is break-
ing into your car. You know, essentially what women are afraid of
and what women are really afraid of, if you examine it, is they are
going to be held up or yoked or robbed or dragged back in the bushes,
Mr. WiNX. I think they know what they are afraid of. I don't think
there is any question about it. The point is, w^hy do people come in or
hesitate to come in to the Nation's Capital from all over the country,
or even other parts of the world? Why do we have that? That is the
point of my question.
How do you get the policemen to spend more time trying to divert
a bank robbery? How in the heck do they know when there is going
to be a bank robbery ?
But the perennial call, annual or hourly, although it is down. I
agree with you. I used to be on the District of Columbia Committee
and have ridden in the car several times at night, but I disagree thor-
oughly that the police ought to be in other directions. I think they
ouglit to do something about the crime on the streets. That is the gist
of all of these hearings.
Judge IIalleck. I hope that is what I have been saying. I hope in
my statement that is what I made clear. Sometimes my intent gets
a little bit blurred.
Mr. WixN. jMayl>e the rest of them understood it that way, but
the way I read your statement was you felt that the police were spend-
ing too much time on these small insignificant crimes that you referred
to. ]\[aybe I am wrong.
Judge Halleck. Well, what I am trying to suggest
Mr. Wixisr. They ought to spend more time on the bank robberies,
and things like that.
Judge Halleck. As I understand, Chief Wilson came here and in-
dicated that on a given sliift about 600 of his 4,900 men were on the
sti'oet patrolling at any given instance. Now, it seems to me if the police
were relieved of a lot of inconsequential chores, they could have more
people out on the street patrolling. They could do more tactical force
patrol, toward actually being out there doing something about halting
street crimes.
In my view, Mr. Congressman, what the entire criminal justice
system needs to do is to devote more of its attention to the protection
of the citizens from the street crime and to the resolution of those
crimes once they have been committed, and the courts should be
spending more of their time addressing themselves to those serious
cases.
And in all major cities, not just the District of Columbia, they
should be spending less time going around picking up drunks off the
street and taking them down and filling the courts with them and
bringing the policeman down there.
You know, we have vast numbers of policemen every dav who sit
n round in the traffic court over parking tickets, one thing and another.
It seems to me we ought to be able to develop some sort of ad-
ministartive procedure for liandling that sore of thing. Get it out
of the courts and not have policemen, who should be spending
their time solving burglaries and apprehending robbers, passing out
yellow tickets.
1165
31r. Winn, That, I agree with. I agree with you thoroughly on
that. What you are saying, like the many heads of police departnients
that appeared before us 2 weeks ago, is we ought to have more men on
the streets, more men protecting the citizen on the streets, basically
being seen, making more rounds, so they are available.
But the thought in my mind is, that if there is an assault, if there
is a pusher selling drugs to kids, if there are some of these tilings
that have to be followed through — I agree we ought to improve the
system--then we still ought to make an effort to get those people that
are dealing with the small people on the streets instead of the banlvs.
Judge Halleck. Tliat is true; no question about it. But you see,
you get down to the question when the policeman is riding along, and
they see a crap game going forward on the sidewalk, which is against
the law, or he sees somebody standing out in front of a house on the
public sidewalk drinking beer out of the car, which is against the
law, does he spend a lot of time on that ?
^Ir. Winn. He has to pick liis priorities.
Judge Halleck. Does he make that arrest and take himself out of
service for 2 hours and take the fellow and book him and come down
the next day to court for hours and sit around, or does he let that
go on the theory that isn't really hurting anybody, although it may
be technically agamst the law, but spends his time on patrol trying
to make ?ure your pocketbook doesn't get snatched and burglaries
don't occur ?
It seems to me it is the reordering of priorities and to that extent,
hopefully, the members of the District Committee can see their way
clear to appropriate money and get the long-delayed review of the
D.C. Code in the mill. We would all be a lot better off. I think way
Ijack in 1967 that was supposed to have been done and nobody ever
appropriated the money and followed through on it.
Mr. Winn. I think the committee would have understood your point
better if you had said reorder the priorities. I have a better under-
standing of what you are trying to say. I am still concerned about
the safety of tlie small guy on the street a lot more than I am the
reputation of a bank robber.
]\Iy last question is. Do you base some of your decisions on your
sentences on the fact that the penal institutions are full, are rundown,
or not serving a rehabilitational purpose ?
Judge Halleck. Yos. sir; you can't help but do it. From tlie point
of view of a jud<re who cares, and who is concerned about where he
sends people and what he is doing to them, other than simplv sit up
there and deal out sentences like some sort of emperor who sentences
overA'body, "Off with their head," but when he begins to think ser-
iously about what he is really doins: and Avhere he is sending people
and what the result is going to be, he cannot help but fashion a sen-
tence on that basis, or liave it enter into the problem of sentencing.
For example, if you send a woman to jail she is going to wind up down
here at the Women's Detention Center, where it is overcrowded in a
little small place, with literallv nothing to do but sit around. She
doesn't go down to Alderson where vou hope she is sfoing to go.
She may sit tliere for 2 or 3 years. That is pretty harsh business. If
she could go down to some institntion like Alderson or somewhere
else, T^•here something could really be done, then she would benefit.
1166
You know, we delude ourselves so many times. We salve our con-
science by writing on the commitment, ''psychiatric help ordered,"'
"psychiatric assistance ordered for the defendant," because Ave recog-
nize he needs it.
I had an individual recently attending a conference, who came
down from New Jersey, and pointed out when he was in charge of
a prison in New Jersey he had 6,000 inmates and one psychiatrist. All
of these commitments come down requiring psychiatric help. When
3'ou get down and look at what is going on in the prisons you find
out that the promise is a far cry from reality. They are supposed to
be ti-aining them to be auto mechanics down there. They have room
for maybe a half dozen or 8 or 10 men in the program and an old
beat up automobile to work on.
And down at Lorton, if you don't have at least a 3-year sentence
you don't even get into any of those programs. You just do dead time
down there.
Mr. Winn. The woman that you mentioned. I don't know what she
was charged with. If she was charged with assault and battery
Judge Halleck. Make it grand larceny, $150 fur coat.
]Mr. Winn. Grand larceny. So you set down a decision, because of
the facilities in the District of Columbia — Avhich I know, I have toured
them, are Aery bad — and you don't want her to sit there for 2 or
3 years until she gets a sentence or decision, but isn't it possible that
the same woman, if she was in some other State, let's say California,
where they may have a country club type of facility for grand larceny
for women, isn't there quite possibly inconsistency in what your sen-
tence might be and what it might be out there ?
Judge Halleck. Yes, indeed.
Mr. Winn. Based only on the institutions that the taxpayers pav
for?
Judge Halleck. That is right. One of the problems we have in
the District of Columbia, Mr. Congressman, and I suppose you prob-
ably know it as well as an^'body, as Congressman Steiger says, some-
times Iget a little blunt, and I have got to be blunt with you gentlemen.
The Department of Corrections of the District of Columbia has
to look to the Congress for the money to function. And you gentlemen
have to go back home to your districts in order to get reelected. If
the people in your district get the idea that you are spending a lot of
the Federal taxpayers' money to build country clubs for criminals,
bearing in mind 98 percent of the people down in Lorton Penitentiary
are black and come out of the inner city, when you go back to your
districts, if your opponent begins to get that idea, he is going around
the district and he is going to remind the voters.
He will claim you are squandering the Federal taxpayers' money on
this sort of business for all of those kind of people up there that don't
deserve any kind of break anyway. After all, they committed a crime,
didn't they? And they are in minority groups generally; they are
the poor, underprivileged, and dispossessed.
It is a fact of life. We see it coming through. So when I tell you
about how the people are that come in, and we can all go down to
the jail and look— you can go down yourself and look. You hardly
see a white face down there. If you have to go back to some district
in the South and try and explain that to a lot of folks back there, or
go back out to my dad's former district, I tell you I am sure you gentle-
1167
nioii know liis replacement, who is a colleafiue of yours. I don't suppose
Mr. Landurcbe would earn very many votes back in the Second
District of Indiana if he were to devote a whole lot of the taxpayers'
money to somethino- of that nature.
lliat is a ]>olitical fact of life we have to deal with here. And as a
judge, 1 have to recognize it pi-ag-matically. I know that these deficien-
cies exist. I know what the problems are. I know, looking into what
I am trying to do and trying to be. reasonably fair l)oth to the victim
and to the commuiuty, and recognizing the individual has to come
back to the connnunitv sometime. I have to take all of these things
nito consideration,
Mr. WiXN. Thank you, Judge.
Chaii'man PEm:n. Mi*. Brasco?
Mr. Brasco. Thank you, ]Mr. Chairman.
Judge Halleck, I listened with great interest to your initial state-
ment. I thought it was quite good. I suppose I find myself in that posi-
tion, having spent some time with the Legal Aid Society in New York
and over at the district attorney's office, so I understand your flip-
flopjnng back and forth. ]Mavbe it sliould be a tough line one day and
another day maybe we should b? looking at the greater picture.
Just getting back to one of your conniients — and I agree with that
wholeheartedly, that justice should be swift in order to have a deter-
rent effect. I would also add to it, "consistent and under an atmosphere
where the defendant understands and appreciates that there is no
hypocrisy."
Particularly, the tiling that disturbs me, and I think it does every-
body, is the Avhole question of plea bargaining. When I was witii legal
aid, we got i-ight down to situations where the defendants turned
ai'ound to the judge and said. '"But later on. could they prosecute me
for perjuiy for the things I am saying here?" It is very difficult to
get a defendant to understand that he is admitting to the commission
of a leaser crime but sometimes a different one.
I think everybody understands that and the defendant very well
thinks he is part of a charade at that time, whether he says so or not.
But one of the things I mentioned was consistency and it is very
often that I found a man would get x yeai*s by one judge and if he
were foitunate enough to be down the hall in another courti'oom for
the exact same crime, exact same background and circumstances, he
would get a suspended sentence. So one of my questions to you is,
Should there be and can there be any guidelines set u]) in terms of
that limitation ; consistency of sentence with the same defendants com-
mitting the same crime and relatively from the same background ^
Judge Halleck. One of the things we have done in our coui-t — Cliief
Judge Greene is essentially the one that pushed it. and the Board of
Judges adopted it, we do it in felony — we adopted a system of what
we call sentencing councils. On every felony sentence, three judges
of the coui-t are assigned in panels, three judges review the j:)robation
report, review the facts, go over the entire gamut of material that is
available, and discuss what kind of a sentence seems appropriate in
this case.
All three judges give their input into it. Ultimately, the sentence
is the responsibilitv of the sentencing judge, but Ix'foi-e he imposes the
sentence, as I said, in the preceding week before the man is up for
95-15S— 73— pt. 3 14
1168
sentence, it is reviewed in the sentencing council and two other judges
give him the benefit of their views about this particular case and what
they think, and there is serious discussion about it.
Many times sentences, the origmal sentence perhaps that the judge
who has to impose sentence may have been thinking about, or may
have considered might be appropriate, gets modified either up or
down, depending upon the views of the other judges.
What that does is lead to more consistency. You know, it is a strange
thing, particularly among the judges of our court,
Mr. Brasco. Not to internipt you, Judge, but I wanted to get to some-
thing specific. The point is — and I am not questioning the propriety
of it — but I gathered from my colleague, Mr, Steiger from Arizona,
that you might be inclined to give a lesser sentence than the judge
down the hall for the same crime.
What I am saying is my experience has been that this has a deleteri-
ous effect on the sj^stem. Now, that is not to say the other judge wasn't
too severe, I am not pointing out you should raise yours or he should
lower his. The question is how that affects the overall administration
of justice, I just think it is a bad situation in terms of not building
any confidence in the individuals who come before the judges and
therefore you have not only plea bargaining but you have judge
shopping.
Judge Halleck. I can't agree with you more, but you see what
actually happens is that the judges are really not that far apart in
sentences. We have these sentencing institutes periodically and in-
cluded among them are sample cases that we are given with all of the
information. Each judge goes over it and puts down what he thinks
a sentence ought to be.
You would be surprised how much unanimity there is. Everybody
is pretty much in the ball park. There may be one or two sort of far
out, off-the-wall-type sentences, but by and large, most of them are
pretty much in the ball park. I am sure you will know, if you have been
a prosecutor and defense lawyer both, that very often sort of an aura
exists around the judge and he gets a reputation which may not neces-
sarily be commensurate with what he actually does.
For example, while I get accused of being a little on the lenient
side and a little on the liberal side, it surprised everybody when I
passed out the first life sentence, "Wlien you go back and review, you
find I have a higher degree of sentences for time to work release, or
something else than the national average. I am about in the same per-
centage category for that sort of thing as other judges.
I may vary it; for example, if I give him 10 years, I give him a 1-
year minimum, because I happen to believe he ought to have the opj^or-
tunity to get himself rehabilitated within a short period of time and
have an opportunity for parole. But Judge Murphy, who is right next
to me in chambers, has a reputation for being one of the toughest judges
down there, and yet he and I were on the sentencing council all through
felony court and our sentences were almost identical in every case.
Mr. Brasco. I didn't mean to be critical of that.
Judge Halleck. I agree with your statement in general.
Mr. Brasco. I am personally arriving at the opinion that I don't
think you can rehabilitate anybody if he is sentenced to a long period
of time. I suspect you can take a prisoner and put him up in the best
1169
hotel in Miami Beach and giv^e him room service and say, "You stay in
this room for the next 15 years and look out at everybody on the out-
side and never leave this room," and I believe you will have the same
kind of effect, in my opinion, emotionally and socially, as 5 or 10 years
in a penitentiary.
So I think we have to work on a better way of dealing with the
defendant once he is incarcerated. I am particularly unhappy because
I don't laiow all the answers. If we talk about rehabilitation, however,
long sentences don't rehabilitate anyone. If we talk about just putting
someone away on the shelf away from society to give society that
kind of protection, that is a different ball game. But they are two
different things.
Judge ILiLLECK. The one thing we have the least of and need the
most of is empirical data to support what we are doing or not doing.
There just aren't anj^ realistic surveys, nothing is being done to come
back and feed back to a judge, after he has been there for awhile,
whether what he is doing is right. "VMiether putting people in jail for
long periods of time is the answer, whether he is more successful on
probation.
The closest thing I heard to come to statistical surveys recently was
at the sentencing institute. — and I think I have my figures correct, I
may be a bit off — but Massachusetts, as you may know, recently de-
institutionalized its juvenile justice system. They stopped putting kids
in jail. But before they did that they figured they had a lot of public
objection they were going to have to meet. And they ran some control
groups and got some statistical information. They discovered if they
brought a juvenile into the court, brought him through the process,
convicted him, and sent him home with the minimum of supervision by
a probation officer, the recidivism rate of those that went right out of
court and back home to their own neighborhood and own home witli
some supervision and care, the recidivism rate, I think, Avas 17 percent.
But of those that tliey put in institutions and locked up for a year
or more, the recidivism rate was something like 98 percent.
]Mr. Br^vsco. I am not surprised at that.
Thank you. Judge.
Mr. NoLDE. Judge Halleck, do you have any high-level support for
your ideas on so-called victhnless crime ?
Judge Halleck. I published several opinions recently to try to take
some of the victimless crimes out of court, and I guess the next highest
level is our court of appeals. I don't know what they are going to do
with it. Mr. Work is here ; his office is appealing it.
_ Mr. NoLDE. I was referring to, particularly, a high government offi-
cial. I believe you have it in front of you there"^.
Judge Halleck. Yes. I will give this pamphlet to you. It is a publi-
cation by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, and in here
they quote President Richard M. Nixon, who says :
We have to find ways to clear the courts of the endless stream of what are
termed victimless crimes that get in the way of serious consideration of serious
crimes. There are more important matters for highly skilled judges and prosecu-
tors than minor traffic offenses, loitering and drunkenness.
Mr. NoLDE. Thank you, Judge Halleck. And that is a direct quota-
tion from the President of the United States, Eichard Nixon?
1170
Judge Halleck. Yes. I would suppose that is about the highest kn'el
support you can i>'et. This is an interesting publication, called '"Crimes
Without Victims^: The Two-Billion-Dollar Problem That Blocks Ef-
fective Crime Controls." It is published by the National Council on
Crime and Delinc^uency.
[The publication referred to can be found at the end of Judge
Halleck's testimony.]
Chairman Pepper. Judge, you are known as being a very under-
standing, dedicated, and passionate judge. What vrould your suggest-
tions be, if you were asked by the President and the Congress, as to
what recommendations you would make if you had ample money
and authority to reduce the rate of crime in the District of Columbia.
We are proud of all of the innovations we have had. There has been
a reduction in the rate of increase of certain crimes and we are dis-
turbed there has been a slight increase in index crimes. But we would
like very much to have your views and counsel, out of your experience
and out of your concern with the subject, as to what could be done to
reduce crime in the District of Columbia, to give a greater sense of
security to the people of this area.
Would you be kind enough to write out and send here for inclusion
in the record, a summary of what your proposal and recommendations
would be if the President and/or the Congress were asking you for
your recommendations as to what could be done to reduce crime
further ?
Judge Halleck. I Avould be happy to do that. I can give you one
answer very quickly. Jobs.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much, Judge. We thank you for
the valuable contribution you made here this morning. We wish you
godspeed in your effort.
[The following information, previously referred to, Avas received for
the record :]
[Excerpt from •'Crimes Without Victims : The Two-Billion Dollar Problem That r.locks
Effective Criuie Coutrol.' Xational Couueil on Crime and Delinquency, August 1971]
YiCTiMLKss Crime
Victimless crime is defined as crime based on moral codes in which there is
no victim apart from the person who commits the crime. The commonest ex-
amples are drunkenness, drug addiction, voluntary sexual acts, vagrancj',
grambling.
Ihe acts of someone v\'ho commits victimless crime are in most cases socially
disapproved, but none of them is criminal in the real sense. Whatever harm
occurs is to the offender himself and not to society. In some cases — vagrancy,
for example — there is no harm to anyone. The typical victimless crime, there-
fore, is a health, moral, or social matter rather than a criminal one. But it is
now dealt with by our criminal justice system.
Drunken driving is not a victimless crime, nor is the robbing of a bank by an
addict. These are real crimes and they produce real victims.
THE IMPACT OF VICTIMLESS CRIlfE
Victimless crime is so overwhelmingly pervasive throughout the country that
dealing with it through criminal penalties misuses our policeman power, con-
gests and makes a travesty of our courts, and jams the jails. It so preoccupies
the criminal justice system that it prevents it from dealing effectively with real
crime.
Some measure of how large a problem this is may be gauged from these three
facts :
One-half of all arrests by the police are of victimless crime offenders.
One-half of all the people in jail are charged with or have been found guilty
of victimless crime.
1171
One-third of all arrests are for drunkenness.
(Iranted that many of those who commit victimless crime indeed cause society
concern, the question remains : Should such oftenders he the resi)onsihility of the
criminal justice system — of police, judges, and jailers? Or should they receive
therapeutic help from health or social service agencies?
I'efore answering the <iuestion, we ought to take a look at how well the system
now manages these prohlems.
Take drunkenness, for example. Dealing with a drunk requires a police arrest,
transportation to a precinct house, detention, booking, photographing, arraign-
ment, trial, and, tinally, jail for terms ranging from live days to six months. Such
a priiccss involving police, courts, and jails is very costly. Does it work? The
answer is no.
A Washington, D.C. prison committee in 1957 reported that it had found six men
who had been arrested 1,409 times for drunkenness. Collectively they had served
1'J't years in penal institutions I Tlie.se drunks wei'e obviously not rehabilitated.
Coping with these six men through criminal i)enalties cost the public an esti-
mated )n('(>0,000, and never dealt with their illness— alcoholism.
THE I'SK OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES
The imposition of criminal penalties has proved to he ineffective in controlling
victimless crime behavior. The laws dealing with victimless crime are commonly
(lisre.uarded. Alcoholics continue to drink; addicts go on using drugs; gamblers
pcrsisr in betting; vagrants wander as they will.
Imprisonment is no deterrent and it is no rehabilitation. Quite the conti'ary.
Instead of being reformed by jail such men come out embittered, unemployed
estranged from their families, and, too often, criminalized.
THE SIDE EFFECTS OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES
T)(>aliiig with the victlndess crime offender through crimiiml penalties not only
fails to deter or reform him, it also has a catastrophic impact on the country. For,
in addition to drastically lowering the capability of the criminal justice system
to control real ci'ime, it has the following effects :
ft Jcxxms respect for hiir. — Since the laws relating to victimless crimes are so
often disregarded, there is a diminished respect for laws in general. To illustrate :
Millions of peoj>le gamble illegally eveiy da.v. Tlie law is powerless to stop them.
There is no benefit from laws that are disregarded by the public and unenforce-
able by the authorities. On the contrary, there is much harm. (We should have
learned a lesson from I'rohibition. )
It enriches orrjanizcd crime. — Organized criminal groups spring up to profit by
providing the illegal goods and services desired by many people. Gambling is now
mainly an illegal business whose net income is estimated to be in excess of ten
liillion dollars a year.
Thus, by giving organized crime a virtual monopoly in these goods and services,
we have helped Iniild one of the most ruthless and destructive social forces in our
history. No part of American life is now imcontaminated by the far-reaching
power of organized crime.
ft fosters corruption. — The victimless crime offender carries out acts which the
police and other public officials are pledged to prevent. The illegality of these acts
fosters corruption. Crime syndicates pay an estimated two billion dollars a year
to public officials to permit such activity to continue without serious interruption.
ft cuuses crime. — In the case of the addict, the ban on his drugs and his inability
to obtain them cheaply cause him to conunit crime. More than one-half the crime
in some cities is traceable to addicts seeking money to pa.v for drugs.
A MATTER OF nOLLARS AS WELL AS LIVES
The American criminal justice system — police, courts, jails, prisons, probation,
parole, legal aid — costs the public an estimated six billion dollars a .year, not
counting depreciation or interest costs. Victimless crime is responsible for at least
one-third of the effort made by our criminal justice agencies. Thus, victimless
crime as now dealt with through criminal penalties costs the American taxpayer
more than two billion dollars a year.
And for that two billion annually there is no positive gain.
1172
A NEW APPROACH TO VICTIMLESS CF.IME
The National Council on Crime and Delinquency urges that laws i-elating to
crimes without victims be removed from the criminal codes. NCCD does not con-
done the acts of victimless crime offenders. It contends that, for many of those
now prosecuted under such statutes, the appropriate measures are not the sanc-
tions imposed by police, courts, or jails, but the voluntary services offered iij
health or social agencies.
Currently, all legislatures are faced with demands to allocate huge sums for
more manpower and bigger institutions to control crime. The need to examine
our present costly and futile approach to victimless crime is, therefore, impera-
tive.
NCCD is joined by many public officials, law enforcement specialists, judges,
and penal experts in asking the diversion of the victimless crime offender from
the criminal justice system.
President Richard M. Nixon says, "We have to find ways to clear the courts of
the endless stream of what are termed victimless crimes that get in the way of
serious consideration of serious crimes. There are more important matters for
highly skilled judges and prosecutors than minor traffic offenses, loitering, and
drunkenness."
New York City Police Commissioner Patrick Y. Murphy says, "By charging our
police with the responsibility to enforce the unenforceable, we subject them to
disrespect and corruptive influences, and we provide the organized criminal syn-
dicates with illicit industries upon which they thrive."
Says Norval Morris, Director of the University of Chicago Center of Studies in
Criminal Justice, "We should stop trying to enforce morals. It did not work with
the Volstead Act that produced prohibition and opened the door to a widely
profitable criminal era. . . . Drunkenness, use of drugs, gambling, and homo-
sexuality are distasteful to most of us and harmful to the person involved, but
these activities, in and among themselves, neither hurt other individuals nor
destroy property. So why use our police, courts, and jails trying to stop them?
Use them instead to fight real crimes, especially crimes of violence."
James Vorenberg, Director of President Johnson's Commission on Law Enforce-
ment and Administration of Justice, says, "The real need is to reduce the number
of laws. . . . The prime area for such action is in relation to 'crimes without
victims' such as sex, liquor, and drug crimes."
Chairman Pepper. "We will take a brief recess while I make a
pm-ely personal statement.
[Brief recess.]
Chairman Peppek. I ask the committee to come back to order and
I ask Mr. Brasco to preside.
Mr. Brasco (presiding) . I miderstand our next witness is Mr. Charles
Work, Chief, Superior Court Division, Office of the U.S. Attorney,
District of Columbia.
STATEMENT OF CHAELES R. WORK, CHIEF, SUPERIOR COURT DIVI-
SION, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM A. HAMILTON, PROMIS
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
Mr. Work. I have with me ]Mr. William A. Plamilton. He has been
associated with me for the past 3 years in the establishment of our
PROMIS — management information system — that I am here today
to tell you about.
Mr. Brasco. You may proceed, Counsel.
Mr. Not.de. Thank you. ]\Ir. Chairman.
]Mr. Work is a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School
and has a master's des^ree from the Georgetown University Law Cen-
ter. He was an E. Barrett Prettyman fellow from the Georgetown
legal intern program, has been an assistant U.S. attorney in Wash-
ington, D.C., for the past 7 years.
117
o
He is presently the Chief of the Superior Court Division of the
U.S. Attorney's Office in the District. He is a member of the Judicial
Conference of the District of Columbia and a member of the Ameri-
can Bar Association Committee on Court ]Modernization. He has au-
thored numerous articles and received a number of awards.
We are ^-ery pleased to have JNIr. Work, who has done such a superb
job in effeetuatino- the PROMTS svstem, and who is here on behalf of
Mr. Harold Titiis, U.S. attorney 'foi- the District of Columbia. ^Nlr.
Titus is ceiiainly one of the most outstandino; prosecutors in the
United States. We are anxious. Mr. Work, to leani about your inno-
vative PRO^MIS prop-am, which has been put into effect and is de-
sioiied to identify certain offenders in the system, and pvs them
expedited treatment. You may begin with your opening statement.
Mr. Work. Thank you verv much.
Thank you, Cono-ressman Brasco. ]Mr. ]\rann, ]Mr. Nolde.
It is a privilege to be here today to appear on behalf of the Depart-
ment of Justice and Mr. Harold H. Titus, Jr., the U.S. Attorney for
the District of Columbia.
If I may, I will, instead of reading from my statement, highlight
it. I think that you will find that more instructive and I think you
will find it more interesting if I do it in that fashion.
[Mr. Work's prepared statement appears at the end of his testi-
mony.]
Mr. Womv. You are all too familiar, hearing from Judge Halleck
and other witnesses, with the scene in the District of Columbia, and
in other major courts in the country, in the major urban areas. By
that "scene"' I mean the scene of the mass-produced, assembly line en-
vironment, where there are thousands and thousands of cases processed
by coui't,s that have insufficient resources.
It is that scene that has prompted us to do some of the work with
respect to the PROMTS system I am going to talk to you about today.
For instance, one of the things that has troubled ns the most in that
mass-produced assembly line scene is the recidivist, the major offender,
who can be lost in that assembly line scene.
The major offender has anonymitv there that he would not have in
a small town prosecutor's office. He can have, for instance, several
cases pending in the court at the same time, assigned to several dif-
ferent prosecutors, and not of those prosecutors know there is in fact
another case pending against him in the system at the same time.
Among other things, the PRO^SIIS system is an attempt to help
us alleviate this situation.
There are other problems in this environment. The lack of control
OA-er files. Mr, Brasco, you must have expei-ienced, in your time as a
prosecutor and public defender, going to the fileroom and the frustra-
tion of not being able to find anything, much less an inadequate in-
complete file.
Prosecution supei^isors in this environment have very little sense
of what goes on. T sometimes say that big city prosecutors manaire
their offices by newspaper. They go out in the morning and read the
morning paper to see who has been shot or assaulted and thev go to
the office knowing that is one of the cases they will l)e concerned about.
1174
Tlien tliey pick up tlie afternoon paper and see what happened in the
courts during the morning. They wait for one of their assistants, per-
haps, or perhaps a newspaper reporter, to run into their office and
say:
Mr. Work, or Mr. Supervising Prosecutor, lo and behold, there is a very serious
ease down in Courtroom 20, and wouldn't you know it, it is being tried by your
newest assistant prosecutor — who just came on 2 weeks ago in the oflSce, and it
just came up to him in the ordinary course of business in that court.
AVliat we wanted from automation, wliat Ave wanted from a man-
agement system, was a system that woukl help us with this environ-
ment, a system that would give us an early warning about a cru-
cial case coming up, a system that would help us to know in advance
when we were going to have a problem, to enable us to react to it in
a systematic rational way.
I think that it is this scene more than anything else that led us, back
in 1000, to begin work on more than just a system that would index
cases, more than just a system that would show us what the calendar
was for a given day, although PROINIIS does both of those things. But
instead, a system that would help us accomplish the objective of iden-
tifying in advance in this mass of cases the serious and important ones,
that would help us make certain that these cases were treated, and all
of our cases were treated, in an evenhanded and in a consistent fashion.
We wanted a system that would help us set the different priorities
that sliould and ought to be established by the prosecutor's office in
a major urban center that has a limited number of resources.
That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about the
smalltown prosecutor who has a feel for his caseload, who knows what
the serious and important cases are, who knoAvs Avhat kind of experi-
ence he has in his staff. We are talking about, here, the prosecutor's
office in a major urban center. We have TO attorneys and Ave had last
year over 12,000 serious misdemeanors prosecuted and we had about
2,500 major felonies prosecuted.
NoAv, in this environment, Avhat Ave attem]3t to do Avith our auto-
mated system Avas establish a system that has as its core several
key concepts. The first and ]:)erhaps the most important is our stand-
ardized rating system. The idea that Ave must find in this mass number
of cases the case that involves the recidivist, the person Avith the major
serious criminal history.
And the case that involves the serious offense, a serious injury, a
serious amount of property damage. To dcA'elop this rating scheme,
AA'e called upon the field of criminology and found there are two dif-
ferent rating systems. The first, Avhich rates the seriousness of the of-
fense— really, it measures. Congressman, the harm done to society- — is
a scale deA^eloped by the criminologists, Thorsten Sellin, and Marvin
Wolfgang, and I Avill shoAv you just a little bit later in my testimony
hoAv Ave use that scale and hoAv Ave feed the data from that scale into
oui' system,
1175
The second scale characterizes the scope and the quality of the de-
fendant's criminal history. It was developed for the California penol-
ogy system by a team of criminologists headed by D. M. Gottfredson.
In addition, as I said before, to help ns locate the recidivist and
hel]j ns locate the serions cases, it also is designed to help us give cases
that have similar ratings, similar kinds of treatment and attention.
It is a matter of setting priorities. In this mass produced environ-
ment, where j'ou cannot assign an indixidual prosecutor to an individ-
ual case from beginning to end, the prosecutor has to establish j)riori-
ties. He must not just stuli each case through the limited judicial re-
sources as they come up in chronological order. Chronological order
is not a sensible way to establish priorities.
He has to make dift'ercntiations and he has to be responsible to his
constituency and the public for the differentiations.
For a moment, Mr. Chairman, I would like to show you how this is
being done. I will call upon Mr. Hamilton to pass 3'ou a set of our
materials. If I may, I will take you through how we process a case
in order to help us establish these ]3riorities.
We have several other copies here, Mr. Chairman, for members of
the audience if thev care to follow along.
The first document that you see as you open this folder is a police
form, and the police form we call the 163, after the number on the
form. The thing I want to call your attention to here is that one of
the hrst priorities that we had is we needed to get in the routine case, in
the standard street crime case, a certain amount of uniform informa-
tion about every single case.
In 10()0, when we began to worry about this prol)lem, we had a
three- or four-line form. The rest of it blank. That constituted the
standard police form. You could not open a file at that time with any
confidence that the information you were seeking would be there.
A standardized form, in fact, even a manila folder, was in 1000 a
management improvement of tremendous significance. "We were at
that time taking that three- or four-line form and we were wrapping-
it up in a piece of ])a}^er, folding it up se^•eral times, and I am sure
you understand, Mr. Brasco, where that Avent was inside tlio coat
pocket and home and then perhaps to the cleaners.
One of the first things Ave did when Ave took over this responsi-
bility in the superior court Avas that Ave inserted these police forms
into a folder.
What Ave Avanted Avas, and Ave had to really start from scratch Avith
this, Avas not only an automated system, but avc had to have a manual
system first. Automation is just a part of the sex appeal of this pro-
gram, but it is really rooted in having information on Avhidi you can
nuike intelligent prosecutorial decisions and it is getting that maiuial
information into the hands of the prosecutor's office. That Avas oui-
fii'st and perhaps our most important challenge.
XoAv, the police officers fill out this form. Congressman, and the
items that are automated are indicated on this form by the small
triangle in the left of each blank.
Mr. Br-asco. Let me get that.
1176
]Mr. Work. In tlie left of each blank is the indication that this par-
ticuhir item is automated.
I call your attention, firet of all, to item No. 3. just as an example.
We carry in the automated system the identification nmnber for each
one of the persons that comes through our office. This identification
number is a fingerprint -based number and he gets that number every
time he comes through the system. This is vitally important be-
cause, as you are well aware, there is a significant alias problem in the
criminal justice system.
This enables us' to say this is the same man that has been through
several times before.
Mr. Brasco. Basically, that is his prior record ?
Mr. Work. That i^eflects his prior record.
That particular number is cnicial to the development of our system
and gives us the ability to trace the defendant through each one of
the steps in the criminal justice process. We, in deA-eloping this sys-
tem, conceived of it originally as a subsystem of a system for the
entire criminal justice process in the District of Columbia, that Avould
enable the oifender to be traced from his first contact with the Police
Department, through the prosecutor's office, through the court, and
through the Department of Corrections. PROMTS is, in effect, a sub-
svstem of this concept.
" We can track not only the defendants through this tracing concept
but we can also trark criminal events, and we can also then finally
track the case througli to its idtimato disposition.
The way we track criminal events is through the No. 2 item up
there, the complaint number. The complaint mmiber is the number
that is assigned to a particular bank robbery. That enables us to do a
number of things. If two people commit a particular bank robbery,
it enables them to be tied together because tliey carry the same com-
plaint number and it enables us to also measure our workload much
more significantly.
Criminal statistics are a very impoi-tant byproduct of this system.
Mr. Br^vsco. Excuse me. You are losing me just for one moment.
Let me see if I can understand. When you talk about multiple de-
fendants as related to box No. 2, would not the complaint indicate
the number of defendants ?
INIr. Work. Yes, it would. But let me get, if I may, to the point.
]Mr. Brasco. Because I was missing your point.
Mv. Work. I understand.
The point I was trying to make is simply this: From time to time
I am sure you have been confronted with it right here in your re-
sponsibilities on this committee. You will find some organizations re-
porting to you that they processed so manv cases last year. By "cases."
Congressman, they might mean the number of defendants they pro-
cessed, the number of counts in an indictment they processed, the
number of indictments that they processed.
T]iey can mean anything about a variety of statistics and they
nil would be honest aiid fair statistics, but they would be counting in
different universes. So you have New York counting counts of indict-
ments, you have the District of Columbia countina' cases, you have Vir-
ginia counting indictments, and criminal statistics mean very little.
What we have developed in the PEO^NIIS system is a way of
counting in all of these modes. In other words, if someone in the police
1177
department M-ants to count the number of defendants, we can count
the number of defendants in our system. If you want to count tlie
number of counts, we can count the luunbcr of counts. If you want
to count the number of indictments, we can count the number of in-
dictments. If you want to count the number of criminal events, that
is wliere this comphiint number comes in, you can count the ninnbet
of criminal events.
Tliat enables us to compare to Chief "Wilson's statistics al)out the
number of crimes that were committed. We can then count the num-
ber of criminal events that came into the system. We therefore can
hav^e a uniform set of statistics about each one of those problems.
In other Avords, it makes no sense to say that x number of crimes
wore committed in the District of Columbia, and x number of de-
fendants were prosecuted. The first glance at that is that it is a com-
parative figure. That is not a comparative figure. You have to go
back to X number of criminal events prosecuted in order to have the
comparatiA'e figure. Because every time a crime is committed by two
people, that throws your comparison statistics off.
What I am saying, the PROMIS system is a significant advance in
the ability of the prosecutor's office to keep track of what actually is
cfoing on.
Now, the next form I would like to call your attention to — and I
am not going to go through this whole packet, Mr. Chairman, but this
one and a couple of the reports — is the PRO^SIIS case evaluation form.
I call your attention to just a few of the questions in the first column on
the inside, because it is primarily this first column that constitutes the
Wolfgang-Sellin seriousness scale.
And I think that you will see that they really derive from common-
sense. This is not an esoteric, academic exercise. This is something that
can appeal to a prosecutor who is working on the front line. The
amount of harm that is done, the amount of property damage that is
done, it is these commonsense factors that go into rating how serious
the offense was.
Over in the last column — you will see that this is column 7 — you will
see the characterization of the offender. You will, again, I think, be
struck by the commonsense factor involved in this last column. You
will see that we are concerned about his arrest record. You will see we
are concerned about whether he was on some form of conditional
release. You will see we were concerned about his status at the time of
papering or screening.
Not every one of these questions goes in the rating at all, Mr. Chair-
man. The ones I referred to are the primary factors in rating whether
or not this is a serious offense or how serious the offense is and rating
the person's criminal history or record.
Xow, the way this is used, is reflected in the item — the second item
down, you will find in your package, which looks like this. It is a
report that comes from the computer system.
This report represents a middle page of a daily report that I, as tlie
manager of the Superior Court Division receive and is received by
several of the other supervisory people in mv division. You will see
that it reports a variety of things to me. It lists the cases. First of all.
1178
in order of the seriousness of the defendant's sc'ore. You will see thei'e,
for instance, in the first one, No. 13 on the calendar for that day, it has
a 15-defendant score. That means that that is a shorthand for, and it is
a representation that I understand that is based on the facts that Avere
g-athered at the initial screening process and checked off in this first
screening form.
Mr. Brasco. Is that high or low ^
]Mr. Work. You will see if you look at the to}), it is above average.
You will see up at the top, the year-to-date average scores and the
daily average scores. This is for the misdemeanor trial calendar. You
will see on this particular day, ]\Iay 2, that the average defendant's
score was 9.52. and the average defendant's score, which includes both
felonies and misdemeanors for the year, is 10.69.
Interestingly enough, we sometimes haxe misdemeanor days that
come up higher than the felony days, because the mere fact the person
committed a misdemeanor doesn't mean he doesn't have a significant
and very bad, very serious criminal record.
So here is a case that involves a gun, carrying a deadly weapon, gun,
the first one, and it has already been especially assigned to one of the
assistants in our division, and it has been continued one time under
that number of continuances column. We have the continuance I'eason
recorded there in the last column.
The final thing I wanted to call to your attention, Mr. Chairman, on
this report, are the Y's that you will see over on the right-hand side.
The X's represent a significant management improvement for us in our
office. The X's mean that that pej-son has another case pending in the
system. And if it is over to the left of that column, it is a misdemeanor.
If it is over the right, it is a felony.
That is all the more significant, because our court system is one of
the most current court systems of any major city in this counti'v. We
are ti-ying misdemeanors in approximately 8 weeks. We are trying
felonies in apj^roximately 100 days from the day of arrest, and this
type of recidivism occurs withm that span of time.
I did not bring with me the sheet that would have been the first
sheet, which has the most serious defendants, the ones with the most
serious records. And that is usually where the X's are concentrated.
Chairman Pepper. You mean by that, that during that inter\al of
100 days that thej^ committed other crimes ?
Mr. Work. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. It is a problem that is a
terribly significant one nationwide and oidy a system like PRO^MIS
is in a position to measure. It is in a position to measure it because we
capture that fingerprint -based identification number. So it is not just
on the basis of name we are matching up, that this is the same person,
but it is on the basis of a fingerprint identification.
Mr. Brasco. It is a terribly interesting program. I haven't been in
court now for some j'ears, but I might say I Avas assistant district at-
torney in Kings County, which is a rather large coimty in New York
City. We had a fingerprint record system there and I suspect it has
been there for quite a number of years, but the rest of this is a most
significant improvement with res])ect to keei)ing statistics and some-
thing that is very wortlnvhile and can give up-to-date statistics Avith
respect to the entire case.
Not only that, Avith respect to your entire workload, I suspect, in a
A^eiy short penod of time.
1179
Ml-. AVoRK. Yes. I liavo, in fact, vr'ith nie, CongTOSSinan, a set of sta-
tistical reports I could pass up. It is typical of the kind of work
Ave can do Avith our system. It can be highly detailed.
Mr. Br.\sco. You gave us the figure 6 to 8 weeks' trial, disposition,
for misdemeanors, and ai>proximately 100 days in felonies. I assume
you are including all of your cases.
Mr. AYoRK. That is correct.
!Mr. Br.\sco. Is that an average?
]Mr. "Work. I am sorry, that is an average.
Mr. Br^\sco. Something like 8 months or a year?
Mv. Work. That is right. An average figure.
]\rr. Brasco. That <roes into the overall average?
Mr. "\YoRK. That is i-ight. But one of the things we are proudest of
in terms of our accomplishments since we have received the full local
jurisdiction in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, has
been a substantial reduction in time. For instance, you take the time
in our grand juiy. Before court reorganization, the time was upwards
of 05 days between ari-est and the return of the indictment. We have
reduced that time in the superior court — as I am sure you appreciate,
it is the prosecutor's office that has resix>nsibility for the processing
times in the grand jury — Ave have reduced that time noAv in our last
set of returns to 32 days.
We have been running our average times in the last 4 months be-
tAveen 30 and 40 days, Avhich is, of course, a substantial reduction from
95 days.
It is the PEOMIS system that enable us to keejj track of these cases.
And if I may just turn your attention then to the clipped-together
print-out. Let me tell you how that does it specifically Avith relation-
ship to time.
If you will turn to the middle of this handout, or rather the back,
yon Avill find a page that comes up and says, "The folloAving grand
jury felonies have been pending at least 30 clays." We have a terminal
in our office connected to the computer of Avhich Ave can ask many
questions. We can ask at the present time five different questions but
they are questions of great significance. We can ask the computer to
lift out for us any case that has been pending OA'er any number of days
in that particular section. So Ave can Avalk up to the computer and say,
"Give me a list instantaneously of cases pending more than 30 days in
the grand jury.'"
Mr. Brasco. And you Avould have the assistant assigned to that mat-
ter?
Mr. Work. That is right.
Mr. Br.\sco. So you have a good gage as to productivity, also.
Mr. Work. Exactly.
Mr, Brasco. Let me ask you this in connection Avith this system,
and I suspect that is another advantage of having such a system. You
then liaA'e an opportunity based on your entire Avork product in tenns
of your scale in the procedure, of the ability to assign certain types of
cases to certain assistant L^.S. attorneys, obviously predicated on
experience and expertise.
Mr. Work. Absolutely.
Mr. Brasco. AAHiicli is a distinct advantage. Tlien, I see, also, tliat
even i)redicated on this information, you can have one assistant in
1180
court on the arraignment, present the case to the grand jury, and ulti-
mately try the case.
Mr. Work. That is right.
Mr. Brasco. Which is a distinct improvement as opposed to ha\ing
separate assistants handle each part
Mr. Work. That is right.
Mr. Brasco (continuing). Of that criminal process.
Mr. Work. There is scarcely a part of the management of the pros-
ecutor's office that PEOMIS doesn't address itself to or attempt to
improve. For instance, we get calls from witnesses in the mass-pro-
duced environment and the witness will call wp and she or he will
say, "My name is John Doe. I am a witness in a case and I have
forgotten the day I was supposed to be at court."
We ask if you know the name of the person who assaulted you or
the name of the defendant, and they will say, "No, what would I want
to know the name of that person for" ? I would then ask them perhaps,
grasping for straws, '"Do you know the name of the police officer that
assisted you," and sometimes I will get a "No" there. If we get a
"No" there, under our old way of operating, there was no way I
could tell that witness what day his or her case was up. AYith an auto-
mated case system, we merely plug in the name of the witness in the
system and it flashes up on the screen on a response that shows this
witness is in such-and-such a <"ase and this is the date.
A valuaible tool for public relations in the prosecutor's office, a valu-
able tool for convictions.
Mr. Brasco. That is ^'ery interesting.
Is your office here in the District of Columbia set up in various
bureaus, in which case-s were, basically by virtue of their category,
assigned to relatively a small number of assistants; namely, homicide,
robbery, and so forth.
Mr. Work. We are not as specialized as some of the New Yo^^
offices are, Congressman, but we have in the Superior Court Division,
which is essentially equivalent to a local prosecutor's office, as I am sure
you understand, three separate divisions.
One is our Felony Trial Section, another Misdemeanor, and the
other is the Grand Jury Section. We are fortunate in that we also
have on the Federal side our Office of Major Crimes, an Organized
Crime Section, and we have a Fraud Section.
Because of the unique relationship of the U.S. Attorney to the
District of Columbia, in that my superior of the U.S. Attorney is
both the local and Federal prosecutor, he is able to use both the local
and Federal statutes to the complete advantage of the citizens of the
District of Columbia, and therefore is able to see his Organized Crime
Section in the Federal side of his Office and Fraud Section in the Fed-
eral side.
But our Fraud Section will prosecute cases in the Superior Court
Division or in the superior court as well as in the Federal court. As
will our Organized Crime Section.
Mr. Brasco. In terms of statistics, this is a very great improvement
over some of the things I have seen in local prosecutor's offices. One
of the things that always disturbed me in terms of statistics, and for
the sake of discussion, a defendant may be charged with grand larceny
of an automobile, and the same officer might charge the same defendant
1181
with being an unlicensed operator, with beinir someone who was oper-
ating a motor vehicle witliout the proper insurance and right doAvn
to and including traffic infractions.
I suspect you could pick out for the sake of statistics, that this
was only one transaction.
]Mr. Work. That is exactly the function of that number I was ex-
plaining to you before. That number is the transaction number and
tliat ties everything together. That transaction number, that particular
criminal event number, enables us — I am sure you are familiar with
circumstances where an indictment would have to be dismissed and re-
brought for technical reasons. That dismissal and rebringing under
some statistical systems would be counted as two cases. It is not, in
fact, two cases; it is one case, and it is that transaction number.
Mr. Br.\sco. How much does this cost ?
Mr. Work. Congressman, I have here, anticipating your question,
a sheet that sets out exactly the funds that were set out for this
svstem and !Mr. Hamilton will pass them up to vou here.
' It cost, under LEAA funding, $304,000.
[The funding information referred to follows :]
GRANT FUNDING OF PROMIS
Grant Amount
number Date Grantee Purpose expended
70-DF-047 Completed, Dec. 31, 1971... Office of Crime Analysis Contract awarded by OCA $50,000.00
to Peat, Warwick, Mit-
chell & Co. for design
and programing.
72-A-in(sub- Sept. 1, 1971 to Jan. 31, U.S. Attorney's Office, Su- System maintenance; inter- 42,328.40
grant 72-13). 1972. perior Court Division. face with office manual
operations system; im-
provement of source
document filing.
71-DF-1120. Jan. 25, 1972 (initial award do Amended to make Institute i 202, 395. 00
of funds) to Mar. 31, of Law and Social Re-
1973. search grantee.
Total. 304,723.40
' Extension of PROMIS to felonies. Redesign of subsystem.
Mr. Brasco. That is for equipment?
IVir. Work. No. That is for the development of the system. It has not
been a terribly expensive development process. The equipment, we are
fortunate in that the Department of Justice, of course, has a computer
center. But we are not unique in that regard. There is hardly a major
jurisdiction in this country that doesn't have a county or city com-
puter center and usually there is hardly a major jurisdiction in this
comitry that doesn't have an underused county or city computer.
In fact, in my experience in talking to other district attornej^s about
this, what you might think ordinarily in commerce and business would
be a most important hurdle is not. in fact, a hurdle at all — computer
time. There are computer centers that are underused and dying to be
used and the prosecutor usually can find a computer center that is going
to run for him very reasonably.
Mr. Brasco. Do I understand you developed this system ?
Mr. Work. Congressman, that would be a gross overstatement. I was
one of the leaders of the team that developed this system. Mr. Hamil-
ton, to my left, was also a leader of that team.
1182
Mr. Brasco. Both you and your colleagues in absentia are to be com-
mended. I think it is a very fine system.
Did yon ever give any thought to using a similar system for prisoners
who have been incarcerated and are serving their sentence, in terms of
trying to match up things to produce a better system of rehabilitation ?
Possibly the work records, backgrounds, habits? Because it seems to
me it is part of the committee's work.
This is one of the things we think is lacking in terms of meaningful
rehabilitation programs — the name is probably good, too, "Promise —
with an "e" on it. This could be used to correlate all the information one
needs to know about a defendant in order to rehabilitate him. It seems
to me to be a tremendous way to coordinate the data that is necessary
to try to fit him into a proper work program or training program.
Mr. Work. Even more important than that is evenhandedness of
approach. I have had some correctional experience as a law student. I
was an intern for a summer at Leavenworth Penitentiary. One of the
things that sticks in the craw of prisoners time and time again is
someone will be able to get into a college program and others won't be
able to get into a college program. They say, "My record isn't as bad as
his and I didn't commit as bad a crime, and I have more promise than
he does, and yet I am not in this kind of program."
Evenhandedness is not just a problem for the courts or prosecutor
or judges: it is a problem for corrections. And a system like this can
help this. It can help management monitor this kind of problem right
here, say in the Federal Bureau of Prisons liere in Washington.
But I am happy to say the same gentleman who developed the scale
we used, D. C. Gottfrectson. with respect to persons' criminal history
and badcground, is also working under contract to tlie Federal Bureau
of Prisons to develop a system much like the one you have just hit
upon here in your discussion this morning.
This type of practical application of a theoretical approach, we are
just scratching the surface on it in our field. There has too long been
a broad separation between the theoretical innovative thinkiiig and
the actual practice. There are a variety of reasons for that, including
the lack of resources on the practical level.
You know, I sit down and talk to some of these local prosecutors
about developing a computer system and I say. you know, developing
a computer system is very hard work for your management team and
you and the other people in your office are going to have to spend some
time on it. They throw up their hands in despair and say :
Where am I going to find the time? I almost have to go to court myself in
order to move the cases tlirongh the system. I can't afford to be thinking about
the future, I do not have the resources, do not have the ability to do anything
but cover the courts.
That is one of the real tragedies of the prosecution in major cities
today. We are really fortunate in the District of Columbia in that we
have perhaps a larger number of prosecutors per population than any
other city in the country.
Mr. Brasco. Maybe you can answer this, Mr. Work, or our chief coun-
sel. Would this kind of program come under funding of the local pros-
ecutor's office, where we can send in a team to develop the concept?
Would it come under LEAA ?
Mr. NoLDE. Yes ; it is, in fact, funded by LEiVA.
1183
Mr. Br.\sco. The problem is no money ?
Mr. Work. LEAA has in fact helped promote the PROMIS system
in other jurisdictions. The past administrator, Jerris Leonard, sent
out a letter to all of the prosecutors in the country last fall telling
them about this system and telling them that they would be available
and another organization called the National Center for Prosecution
Management, Avhich has been funded with LEAA funds, would be
available to assist them in making an application for this type of sys-
tem for their office.
I ought to stop here and just say a few words for the National Cen-
ter for Prosecution INIanagement. The head of the National Center is
Mrs. Joan Jacoby. an extraordinarily talented person, who helped
us develop this PROMTS system, wlio worked with me in my office
for a period of more than a year and a half. I asked her to come with
me today so I could introduce her, but she was too modest to come.
The three of us really worked on the developing of these concepts in
their earlier stag-es and she has taken what she has learned in those
initial years now and applied them in her position as the executive di-
i-ector of the National Center for Prosecution INIanagement.
In addition to that, we have had some very good response from a
number of other prosecutors' offices in the system. As you heard yes-
terda}'. Mr. Busch from Los Angeles is installing the PROMIS system.
Chairman Pepper. Have you had any inquiry from the Miami dis-
trict attorney's office, Mr. Gerstein ?
INIr. Work. I have had some inquiries from the Miami office. I don't
know how far along they are, but I will say this, a number of juris-
dictions in Florida are moving right along in the computerization
field and are doing some very good work down there.
Mr. Brasco. I feel like I am on a busman's holiday here.
Let me ask you this. In terms of this fingerprint record that you
run. how many jurisdictions have that ?
Mr. Work. Only the District of Columbia. Mr. Brasco, and that is
a problem.
Mr. Brasco. That would be a pi^oblem. You would never know
whether or not this individual had committed a crime in another
State.
Mr. Work. That is a significant national pi-oblem and one I think
probably should concern this committee very deeply. We also have
room in our system and we do carry, when we get it, the FBI number,
which is also a fingerprint-based number. So whenever we have a
match on a FBI number that will also occur.
Mr. Brasco. Couldn't you use just the fingerprint of the FBI with-
out n number?
Mr. Work. I am not certain. I am not expert enough technically
to be able to conceptualize this for you, but I have the hope that some-
day we will be able to have a universal fingerprint number identifica-
tion system, that will be crossjurisdiction. This problem is magnified
in larger States, such as your own. where one city will have a defend-
ant on one fingerprint number and another city will have him on an-
other fingerprint number and never the twain shall meet.
I I hink we are going to be coming up — with the NCIC system, Na-
tional Crime Information Center system — with an answer to this.
95-158— 73— pt. .? 15
1184
hopefully in the relatively near future, but we are years away. Un-
fortunatelv, even though we are getting the theoretical basis, we are
years away from the full-fledged practical application.
Mr Brasco. In New York, if I remember correctly, it might be a
trifle more advanced in terms of the collection of information because
what would happen, the fingerprint request would go to 100 Center
Street in downtown Manhattan, which would include the entire city
of New York Then a second request would go to Albany, and under
the system, all iurisdictions report whatever fingerprints they have m
terms of the relationship to a defendant and his criminal actions to
Albany. So we get the benefit of that. And then send the copy ot the
prints to Washington.
Mr. Work. Right. . i ^ _„.
Mr. Brasco. So that we get a pretty good gage of whatever was
available. Obviously, there are gaps in between, but I think with your
system, you could develop the kind of network that would stop the
oips and would be more meaningful in keeping the necessary data.
"^ Mr Work. The key is that instantaneous access. For instance, we
can go in when we screen that case, and before we make the bond rep-
resentations through our terminal and get instantaneous access to that
fin'^erin-int record and see what the pending cases are against the per-
son and whether or not there are any existing warrants out tor him,
which are so important in this coordination respect and so important
with respect to making adequate recommendations to the judge or
magistrate about the bail recommendations we would submit we would
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me just a minute. How much would it
cost and how technically difficult would it be and how long would it be
after you get the money to provide that kind of a system on a national
basis that you have here for the District of Columbia?
Mr Wop.K. Well, Mv. Chairman, we have here, and I think Congress-
man Brasco has the figures, the figure that shows how much LEAA
money went in the sytem so far, $304,000. It takes a long time because
not every iurisdiction, as you know, is like every other jurisdiction.
Chairman Pepper. On a national basis, you wouldn't necessarily have
to have all of the items which you have in your local report. You give
pretty <renerally what the record of that party charged with a cnnie m
a given case was in the country, his rate of recidivism, instance of re-
cidivism, his incarcerations, and crime, and what cases were pend-
ing against him perhaps in other parts of the country, and the
How much would it cost and how long would it take to set up that
kind of system so you have access to it here in the District and other
parts of the country ? ,
Mr Work. Let me suggest this : We have just recently been awarded
a arrant of $89,000 from LEAA to develop a series of modular software
packages that can be lifted out of our system and transported to
another interested prosecutor's office. One of the first customers these
sofeware modular packages is going to be the prosecutor m Cobb
Coimtv, Ga. He has already sent his people up to begin worlang with
our software people to enable this system to be transported into other
interested offices throughout the country.
That is ,q-oing to save a lot of time. We have been working on this
system and developing the concepts behind this system since late 1969.
1185
Chairman Pepper. Why couldn't the FBI develop this kind of a
system on a national basis ? Of course, where it would depend on use
only by the local jurisdiction that have these systems to feed it in, but
why wouldn't the FIH set up up a comprehensive sj'stem of this sort
to bring in data from all over the country and it, m turn, would be
accessible to all of the prosecuting offices or the courts in the country ?
Mr. Work. I think that is in fact the goal of the NCIC system,
Mr. Chairman, and I think that kind of planning is presently going on.
Chairman Pepper. Have you had any estimates from anybody as
to how much it would cost to do it and how long it would take ?
Mr. Work. Mr. Chairman, I just don't know how much money is
budgeted for the NCIC plans or how much they project will have to be
used in the future for developing such a s^'Stem. But it all depends
uitimately, Mr. Cliairman, on developing the subsystems in the prose-
cutors oliices themselves to feed that information.
One of the things our system is going to be doing in conjunction witli
the Wales system is feeding data into the XCIC's District of Colum-
bia repository. We are linked in. We have in our system what they
call the project search codes, which are the NCIC Codes of Criminal
Offenses, and we carry those search codes so we can link them with
NCIC and provide the automated base for NCIC queries for the Dis-
trict of Columbia.
What we have to do is build the subsystems in the major prosecu-
tors' office throughout the country that will link into NCIC and
all of a sudden, I think, and within the next 5 or 10 years, it is going to
be very interesting. We are going to be faced with an information
explosion in the criminal justice field.
Eight now v^e have an information famine. But once these systems
get developed, once thev get linked up, we are going to have a great
deal and the ability to do a great deal of significant research we just
don't have now.
Chairman Pepper. Suppose X is convicted liere in the District of
Columbia of some serious crime and there is a probation inquiry about
that individual so it would be background for the judge's sentence.
What access do you have at the present time as to information about
that man's record ?
]Mr. Work. At the present time — and maybe I should take this
moment to do what I was going to do at the end of my remarks, take
this moment to in^dte you to come down and see how it actually
works. You will see what we can do. We can type in the man's name
and ask what his status is right at the moment at any stage in the pro-
ceedings as he goes through the system.
For instance, if we have a man that comes in — and we check eveiy
single one that comes in on a new arrest — and we found out — well, let
me give you an example.
I was workir.g with the system myself just tliis last week and I i-aii
into a case as I was working with it. where the defendant was on two
difTorent ]:)rob;if ions. He was on probation to the TT.S. District Court
in the District of Columbia and he was on probation in the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia. He had just been rearrested and
come into our svstom again.
Now, the likelihood, although I of course do not know it for a fact.
bhe likelihood is great because those probations were very close to each
other, that the inforniation v.-as not given to each probation officer and
each judge, that he was on production somewhere else.
1186
To answer your question more directly, we can type in his name
and see wliether or not lie is on probation. We will, of course, have
to call for his file because all the computer does is alert us to the fact
he is on probation.
Chairman Pepper. I know, but information is available only in the
district you are talking: about.
]Mr. Work. That is correct.
Chairman Pepper. I am talking about in the whole United States.
Mr. Work. I know of no other place that information with his kind
of depth
Chairman Pepper. When the judge is sentencing that man, he doesn't
know whether he just got out of a prison in Florida or some other
place, or whether he served half a dozen prison terms, et cetera.
INIr. Work. Our only hope is that we will have the FBI rap sheet in
the file and the FBI rap sheet is in fact accurate and complete.
Chairman Pepper. You mean every time a man is fingerprinted in
a State that information is given to the FBI ?
Mr. Work. That is it, presently.
Chairman Pepper. Every time he is sentenced and spends incarcera-
tion in a jail or penal institution, that comes to the FBI ?
Mr. Work. Tliat is right. It is supposed to.
Chairman Pepper. Have they got it on a computer over there ?
Mr. Work. I believe it is computerized, Mr. Chairman. The diffi-
culty goes not to the FBI system, but right back to the heart of the
local systems. If the local system isn't good enough to know they have
that man in there several times, which we know they are not, they
are also not good enough and accurate enough and complete enough to
get the information to the FBI. Because it all goes back to the local
criminal public system.
It all rests at their door. If they are not feeding accurate information
to their own files, thev can't get accurate information to the files of the
FBI.
Several otlier aspects, if I may continue.
One of the most important things we have done with this system,
and it is very unique, is that we record in this system the reason for
the actions that we take. We don't just record that we have nol-prossed
a case or dropped a case or the case has been dismissed. We put into
the system the reason for the action.
I think this is one of the most significant improvements that we have
made in this, in the problem of recordkeeping for a prosecutor's office.
How many times has an experienced prosecutor been faced with going
to a file and perhaps not even being able to tell from the file itself
what the reasons were the case was dismissed or dropped.
This makes. I think, a very telling and important point. The prose-
cutor is responsible to the public, the people, for these reasons. He
therefore should have these reasons at his fingertips, should be able
to get them instantaneously. The court, of course, when they automate,
only write down a nolle or dismissal. They don't know, they haven't
got the information why the case was either screened out. Avhy it was
dropped, why it was nolled, and dismissed. We collect that informa-
tion. We have standardized reasons and you will see perhaps in that
larger report, the one that is on — actually, my working paper. Not that
report. Congressman. The one that is on real computer paper, not I m
Xeroxed paper.
1187
You will see on that report a table of dismissal reasons.
You will see reasons that relate to witnesses, nonappearance. You
will see where we record reasons that relate to search and seizure. We
are puttino- down why we are taking the actions that we are taking,
and we are putting it down in a way we can retrieve it quickly so
that we can make reports, so we can evaluate it.
Another product of that, for instance, is that we were able to feed
back information recently to the police department wdth respect to a
type of case that the police officers were having problems with. The
police officers were not using the correct procedures in handling knife
cases. They were not making correct arrests under our statute that
relates to knives.
We w^ere able to identify that because of our infonnation system
and feed back to the police department that information. They issued
a special set of directives that related to knives. We have already,
then, begun to see the salutary effect coming back through the arrests
with respect to knives.
Mr. Brasco. I see you have one that indicates witnesses not being
available.
JNIr. Work. That is a terribly significant problem.
]Mr. Brasco. That would be an interesting thing for a prosecutor
to know if the man comes back into the system with respect to prob-
lems that might have been experienced before with witnesses.
Mr. Work. We recognized this as a problem and it was the data
base that first pointed it out. You can see witnesses were a problem.
We didn't understand the gravity of the witness problem until we
began to see it statistically. As a result, we have applied for and
received a grant from LEAA to do a witness survey of witness prob-
lems in the District of Columbia, and we are going to do a study not
only of the data in our data base, but also we are going to conduct
an actual opinion survey of our witnesses to see what kind of problems
they have.
Mr. Brasco. I think the general public would be very interested to
see that independent statistic with respect to the witnesses' avail-
ability and cooperation.
iMr. Work. It is very important.
Mr. Brasco. To indicate that an integral part of the prosecution
system is the availability of the citizens who will come forward.
Ml'. Work. No question about that.
Chairman Pepper. By the w^ay, one of the witnesses we had this week
said they had arranged to have sessions at night so that it would be
more convenient for witnesses to come at night rather than losing
time from tlieir work or maybe not being able to get off from work.
Of course, the other thing is, the witness having to come maybe two
or more times and not getting to testify because of some other delay.
Mr. Work. That is a very serious problem. Both of them are serious
problems. With respect to the latter, we continue to have a serious
problem with the multiple appearances by witnesses. That is not only
an inconvenience to the witnesses but it is also very costly, as I am
sure you know.
Chairman Pepper. Do you have any night courts ?
Mr. Work. We ran an experiment about 3 years ago now, Mr. Chair-
man, with night court. jNIy office, however, is open every single
1188
nigflit until 10 o'clock. We keep a district attorney on clut}' until 10
o'clock every ni^ht to receive citizen complaints, to hear from witnesses
if they have problems, but the court is not open.
Chairman Pepper. We don't have any night session ?
Mr. Work. Xo. When we ran this experiment about 4 years ago,
the conclusion was that for a variety of reasons it was not beneficial to
the court. One of the reasons, I believe, was that in fact we had very
little interest in it. We made the tim.e available for particularly non-
jury trials. If a person wanted a nonjury trial, he had the option of
having it at night. Unfortunately, we did not get very many callers
for that particular service. I think one of the reasons was perhaps it
was just nonjury. We felt reluctant to keep the jurors on into the night
hours. We have a very high percentage in this jurisdiction of jury
trials. Jury trials are the rule in the district, rather than nonjury
trials. So 1 think that may have been a factor and it has not been as
successful as it might.
Our small claims court operates at night ajid pretty successfully.
Chairman Pepper. That is one of the things worth keeping in mind.
You developed a magnificent system here to give you full information
within your own area here, within your court system, as to what is
going on. What do you have comparable to the service rendered bv the
^""ew York system, so favored by Mr. Justice Ross, who is the adminis-
trator of the court, and whose job it is to correlate all of the compo-
nent parts of a court proceeding, to see the witnesses and prisoners
and the defense and prosecuting attorneys and the courts and all of the
other component parts of the judicial proceeding are present at
the same time and available so that the machinery may move ahead ?
Do you have anything like that ?
]\ir. Work. We do in our court system have a court executive, Mr.
Chairman, and that court executive was set up pursuant to the Court
Reorganization Act that Congress passed in 1970. It has had one im-
portant salutary effect that is analogous to the situation you cite.
The chief judge in the court executive established an interagency task
force that deals with interagency problems. We have never had that
kind of a realtionship before. The interagency task force meets
regularl}' and we discuss problems of interaction between all of the
agencies and try to make systemwide improvements with the many
kinds of problems we have.
Chairman Pepper. But in New York, the chief judge, the senior
judge designates, and apparently they all know he has the support of
the court and if somebody doesn't cooperate then the court can take
action by way of recommending to some agency that they try to get
their people to participate in this or some of them may be within the
jurisdiction of the court system itself, so that the court would have
authority to do something about it.
We were holding a hearing in San Francisco and the Federal dis-
trict judge told us concerning a case that was supposed to be tried on
a given day, he couldn't proceed because the defendant wasn't there
and no other case was set up and the judge was idle on that day.
I know Justice Clark told us he puts more emphasis on having
proper administrative support for the court than he does upon nam-
ing an additional judge.
1189
Mr. Work. Xo qiiostion about that. ISIr. Chairman. In fact, the same
kind of difficulty applies to the prosecutor's office. I think essentially
what we are talkino; about in the criminal trial is a sio-nificant stac^mg
and loo-istics prolilem. Yon liave to get all of these participants there
at exactly the same time and I, in the days I was activejj^ appearing
in court, had many experiences where I was sitting waiting for one
or another one of >he participants to arriye there before this whole
eyent could come off. i- i •
There is no doubt that it is a significant problem and I think it
pounds like a o-reat idea.
Chairman "PEPrER. Before they put this system iu effect, a lot of
times jail authorities Avould be delayed in getting the defendants there.
All sorts of delays would arise.
Is somebody o-iving consideration to that in the District's system?
Mr. Work. As I mention, Mr. Chairman, we are trying to deal with
that with our executiye officer as the head operatiye agent and one of
his assistants presidiuir. We are trying to deal with it as a committee
rather than an indiyidual assigned* the responsibility. We are haying a
fair degree of success. But it is a significant problem and I don't
pretend to haye any magical answer to it.
Mr. Br^vsco. I was wonderincr if vou haye any experience in the data
system of yours, PROMIS, with respect to being able to schedule the
trial of the case, for the purpose of not hayinfr witnesses and/or the
police officers come down to the courthouse, thinkiuir that they may
be on for some court procedure that day. only to find they haye to go
home and come back the next day. And with respect to witness ayail-
ability especially, one of the most discouraging aspects and probably
one of the most single factors, along with some others, but that single
reason giyen by most citizens is that "I am not going to be inyolyed
in that court system : I will lose my job, more than a day's pay." And
from a police officer's point of view, he can be out in the street rather
than standing around waiting for the court to call him to present his
testimony.
Haye you had that experience with this in terms of any beneficial
fallout?
Mr, Work. Congressman, we haye not. The system does haye some
relationship and information to offer with respect to these problems
but we are not in our office responsible for calendaring in any part of
the court, except in the grand jury part of the court. The court man-
ages the calendar in every other part.
But as you say, there is information in a system such as ours that
has a hearing on these matters.
Mr, Brasco. You can tie it in quite easily, could you not?
Mr, Work. There is no question about that. We have not culled
that data out of our system. This brings me to another point I am
really interested in making.
There are more than 160 separate items of information about each
case in that data base. There are more than 80,000 cases now in that
data base. There is a wealth of research potential in there for a variety
of problems, and we have applied for a law enforcement assistance ad-
ministration grant to try to get at some of that research.
We have had a variety of institutions that haye come to us that have
been interested in helping us jret at it. I hope within the next few years
we are going to be able to tap it.
1190
But I think you will be interested in our priorities in that regard. We
set out in the grant application we have written, our first priority is
going to be operationally based research. In other words, research that
will help us improve our operations. And the things you touched upon,
calendaring, is one of those items we set forth as an example of where
this research base could help us.
I think another thing that is important about this is as similar
systems are developed in other prosecutors' offices — and here this
committee can be of enormous help by endorsing this concept — as other
systems are adopted in other prosecutors' offices like this, attention
ought to be paid to the potential cross- jurisdictional research, so we
have data elements in common, so in effect the computers can speak to
one another.
By setting up sort of minimum standards for a system such as this,
we will be able to do significant cross- jurisdictional research. I don't
think LEAA or any other segment of the Federal Goverimient should
be in the business of funding those systems or helping to fund those
systems, unless there is the ability to address national crime problems
and do the kind of cross- jurisdictional research that prototype systems
like this, if followed elsewhere, will enable us to do.
It is hard to explain or to overemphasize how dramatic the effect
has been of building this system. I thought when I started out in 1969,
I was developing something that was going to help our office.
But I really didn't realize the project I was undertaking was tlie proj-
ect, really, of rebuilding and rethinking, not only the administrative
operation of the office, but rethinking policies, priorities.
Thinking through and updating every stage of our procedures.
Weeding o\it procedures and numbers and things like that no longer
meant anything to us and the variety of things that resulted from that.
Not only have we improved our conviction rate with respect to par-
ticularly these major offenders in our mass-produced environment in
particular, but this has led us to develop a much better and more com-
prehensive training program.
It has made us realize that we have problems in the office of dis-
crepancies between attorneys. As a result, wo are beginning to sot down
and put in writing our training directives. We have already put in
writing our screening policy, what we call our case papering policy.
We have had to really rethink and bring up to date, because of this
system, each one of the steps and all of the processes we go through.
' I think that more than an3^thing else, perhaps that this stage, be-
cause it is so early in the stage, that getting there, becoming auto-
mated, has been a substantial portion of the benefit, because it has made
^^s rethink in a rigorous directed kind of fashion, what it is exactly
we are supposed to be doing here in our office.
Thfit has been a tremendously important exercise and one we
didn't really realize we were getting into when we began the project.
I think the final thing I would like to say, if I may, is really a word
of caution. Building a system like this is a tremendous task. It takes a
long time and there are lots of problems. Having had no experience
with computers before and only being a line-type prosecutor, I said to
myself, tomorrow I am going to have a computer system and I will
know everything I need to know and I will have this information at
my fingertips.
I
1191
It is not a matter of tomorrow. We have come to regard PROMIS
as a 5-year project and we are only in year three. There are people who
look at the system and pull out a case today and say, "Oops, there is an
error. The machine made a mistake."
The machine didn't make a mistake. It was somebody who fed the
information into the machine that made the mistake. But the system
has growing pains nnd growing problems, and it takes a long time to
make a system like this work.
Perhaps as I look back on it, we made the system operational too
soon. We didn't spend enough time in the management development
phase. For that reason, among my own assistants, the system in its
initial stages developed a serious credibility problem, because there
were so many errors in the system initially.
I tell other prosecutors' offices when they come to see me about this,
one of the biggest challenges you are going to have is convincing your
own people there is another way, that a new system ought to be tried.
We have found that to be one of our biggest problems.
I think, however, if you will come down and accept my invitation
and, believe me, it is earnestly offered on behalf of myself and the
T'.S. Attornev, and the Department of Justice, if jon accept my invita-
tion to come clown and see it, I think it will be worth your trip. I think
you will he interested in it and I think you will then be able to under-
stand a little bit more about why we are enthusiastic about it. It will
not take long. We are only 10 minutes away. I can get you in and out
in an hour. We would be deeply honored if you would come down and
visit us.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you. We will certainly be interested in
it and we will certainly see if we can't work out a visitation sometime
soon.
I assumed, coming in while your presentation was in progress, that
all of the information you told us about was available to the court. I
find from counsel this is primarily for the prosecutor's office.
Mr. Work. It is the prosecutor's office that feeds the information in
here but let me assure you of this. This information is public informa-
tion. If the court wants to see it, we will provide it to the court. If the
defense counsel wants to see it, we will provide it to the defense coim-
sel. There is nothing secretive about the system and the only thing we
try to do is this : We try to protect the names of the people, as you will
see in my handout to you.
We are conscious of privacy and whenever we have a visitor or
something of this sort, we eliminate all of the names. The defense
counsel, for instance, can't come in and wander through all of the
names of all of the defendants, but he can certainly see anything per-
taining to his defendant. Or the defendant can get anything that per-
tains to himself. We cross out all of the names when we hand it out.
Strictly for priA'acy reasons.
Chairman Pepper. I would think the court, in passing sentence upon
the defendant, would profit by having all of this information. For ex-
ample, he asks for bail and if he can pull the files of this man he might
find out the last time he was on bail he committed two crimes; and it
might influence his decision to grant bail.
1192
Also, the probation officer would have great difficulty in collating all
of this information you have; in response to the judge's direction he
gives him a background report on this man. Do the probation officers
have access to your data ?
]Mr. Work. They certainly do. We make available, in fact, not only
this data available but the whole file. Our whole file is more important
than the antomatod data to the probation officer.
Mr. Br.\sco. It really is intriguing. I think certainly a most worth-
while project, I got a call from my office the other day, from a young
fellow who was taking an examination for a policeman in an adjoin-
ing county, Nassau County, and he had some problems when he was 18
years old and he would like to find out the disposition. He wanted to
liave his record complete and sometimes they are so difficult to find.
It may sound strange, but I am sure you know they can have 15 guys
going around looking for it and throw up their hands in disgust and
say, you just can't get it. I am sure, that in your system you have that
information in terms of what was the disposition of a case at your
fingertips.
Mr. Work. That is in the future for PROMIS.
]Mr. Brasco. You don't have that ?
]Mr. Work. We are developing tliat. Since PRO^NIIS began on Janu-
ary 1, 1971, we only have things from that day forward. We did not
go back and automate the entire history.
'STv. Brasco. I am talking about the concept. I suspect the workload
of feeding the information in
Mr. Work. The concept covers tliat, no question about that.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Work, you have certainly done a magnifi-
cent job in setting up this system and getting it into operation. We
know 3^ou are going to proceed in the perfection of it. I just hope we
can get your example adopted, emulated by other prosecuting officers
all over the country, and we can establish a national system of similar
character so that all component parts of the administrative process for
the administration of justice will have access to all of the information
that should be available on every matter that comes before any part of
that system.
We want to thank you very much for being here.
Mr. Brasco. I am going to send this to my good friend, the district
attorney of Kings County.
]\rr. Work. Fine. Thank you very much, Congressman.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Work, counsel suggests I ask if you would
like to make any comment on anvthing said this morning by Judge
Halleck.
Mr. Work. Thank you, Congresman ; if I may.
I would like to give you a further statistic. Judge Halleck mentioned
that his conviction and plea rate was, as I recall it. about 10 percent
trials and about 90 percent pleas. Judge Halleck does get a great num-
ber of pleas. However, the overall felon}'' plea rate is somewhat dif-
ferent from that and I think the record ought to reflect that.
The overall felony plea rate in the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia for fiscal year 1972 was 65.2 percent. For fiscal year 1972,
we tried in our felony cases, 26 percent of the remaining cases. That is
a substantial number of trials. We try a higher percentage of cases
than almost any other major jurisdiction in the country.
1193
We feel this reflects creditably on our system. We don't feel any-
one is forced to plead guilty. If he doesn't want to plead guilty he can
get a trial in our jurisdiction. As a general rule, and I think it is quite
safe to say, a person is not penalized for going to trial in our district.
I sliould also say, while talking about figures, we are ver}^ proud
of our conviction rate in the superior court. We are running a con\ic-
tion rate of a[)pioximately 86 percent. Last month it was 87.4 per-
cent of our felonies. We think this is an important figure, especially
in light of court reorganization. As you know, the mandate of couit
reorganization was to increase the number of felony prosecutions, ue
have more than doubled the number of felony prosecutions but our
conviction rate has not, in fact, dropped. We think that is very sig-
nificant.
Mr. Brasco. That conviction rate includes pleas and trials?
Mr. Work. It does include pleas — that is right.
Mr. Brasco. Would you have a separate one for trials ?
Mr. Work. Yes, we do. Last month, cases won after trial were 81.3
percent. We are very proud of that statistic.
Chaii-man Pepper. I thought a very serious matter was presented
by Judge Halleck in pointing out the large nmnber of cases where the
law enforcement authorities had not executed bench w^arrants issued
by the court. He told us of some instances \\here homicide and robbery
had occurred on the part of somebody who had already been subject
to being brought in by a bench warrant.
He added — as he understood it — that the Police Department said it
was not part of its duty to serve bench Avarrants and the U.S. Mai-shal's
Office is so overcrowded with work it takes a long delay to get the
bench warrants served. What comment do you make about either of
those matters?
Mr. Work. Yes ; I would like to comment on that.
Let me say, first, that the bench warrant problem has been a prob-
lem of long 'standing in the District. The way the bench warrant re-
sponsibility broke down initially was that, years ago, the old court
of general sessions bench warrants — misdemeanor warrants — were
served by the Pol ire Department, and the Federal court warrants were
served bj' the marshal.
I am trying briefly to give you a little histoi-y of it. When court
reorganization came about, that distinction between felonies and mis-
demeanor responsibility continued. So the Police Department felt it
did not ha^-e the responsibility for the felony bench warrants and that
continues as of today.
Our Office has taken some steps to try to alleviate this impasse, and
this is what we have done. We have taken on the re-ponsibility for
putting into the Wales — Washington Area Law Enforcement Com-
puter System — each one of these existin^^ bench Avarrants. So if some-
one is stopped for a traffic violation, or if there is a hit on Wales, the
person is arrested. That is presently our most fruitful way, believe it
of not. of handling bench warrants. And even though it is not the re-
sponsibility of my Office to go out and execute it, we are just the prose-
cutor, we did assume and voluntarily assumed, because we wanted to
get this issue off dead center, the responsibility for putting those bench
warrants into the Wales.
1194
That part of the system is working quite well and we are quite
happy with that, and we hope through a process of working with both
the Marshal's Office and the Police Department that we will be able
to persuade them to resolve the problem.
Chairman Pepper. Why can't either the municipal level or Congress
simply make it the duty of the Police Department to serve these bench
warrants ?
Mr. Work. There is no question that it could be legislated, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Pepper. It could be done bv the Citv Council or the
Commissioners of the District?
Mr. Work. I think it could be done, certainly done, by the Council
of the District or the Commissioner.
Chairman Pepper. I tell you, as far as I am personally concerned,
I would like this to be made a matter of record, if the District author-
ities don't make it clear that it is within the duty of the Police De-
partment as well as the Marshal's Office — of course, that would have
to come through Federal directive — -that the Police Department is
obligated to serve these bench warrants, which is part of the admin-
istration of justice system, that we will see if we can't get Congress
to pass a law directing that they do so.
Mr. Work. Let me assure 3- ou the U.S. Attorney's Office shares your
concern. I should say one other thing about it. We have made an infor-
mal arrangement whereby certain priority bench warrants are given
priority attention, so the problem is not quite as bleak as Judge Hal-
leck painted it to be, and we are working on it.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much, Mr. Work. You gave us
extremely interesting and valuable information today.
[INIr. Work's prepared statement follows :]
Prepaeed Statement of Charles R. Work, Chief, Superior Court Division,
Office of the U.S. Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Charles R. Work, and
I am an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Coltmibia. I am
Chief of the Superior Court Division of the United States Attorney's Office.
It is my privilege to appear before you today on behalf of the Department of
•Justice and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Harold H.
Titu?. Jr., to describe to you our management information system, known as
PROMIS (Prosecutor's Management Information System).
THE PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED
In the District of Columbia, the United States Attorney is the prosecutor for
common law crimes as well as federal crimes. Like local prosecxitors in most
major urban areas, the United States Attorney in the exercise of his local juris-
diction must prosecute thousands of cases on an assembly-line, mass-production
basis.
As you are all aware, from 1958 to 1969 the number of serious felonies in the
District increased approximately 600 percent. During this period, however, there
was virtually no increase in the number of judges, prosecutors and defense coun-
sel; backlogs grew and felonies were downgraded to misdemeanor status for
trial.
In 1969 the President proposed a comprehensive court reorganization plan
to cope vpith these problems. After careful consideration. Congress on July 29,
1970. passed the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure
Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-358). In addition to restructuring the Court system the
bill provided for more judges, revamped the Bail Agency and the Public De-
1195
fender'.-^ Office. The staff of the United States Attorney was also subsequently
increased.
Simultaneously, the United States Attorney at that time, Thomas A. Flannary,
saw the necessity for internal management improvements to insure that the new
resources would be used efficiently. One of the most important of these improve-
ments was the development of an innovative management information system
known as PROMIS (Prosecutor's Management Information System).
With the aid of a grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
a team of prosecutors, systems analysts and a criminologist was assembled.^ The
initial design was completed and the first phase of the system was made opera-
tional on January 1, 1971.
THE PROMIS CONCEPTS
As it is us(d in Washington, B.C., PROMIS is a computer based information
system. However, to understand PROMIS, it is important to disregard the com-
l)uterizati(in attrilnite momontarily and to examine some of the assumptions,
concepts, and policies which are embodied in PROMIS.''
ImpUcit in PROMIS is the notion that the prosecutor must have a way of
objectively evaluating his workload. In a small town, a prosecutor can become
iuLimately familiar with each case in his office and know how each compares to
t!ie other in terms of the seriousness of the crime and the criminal career of the
accused. However, in the large cities, one ease becomes virtually indistinguish-
able from another because of the huge volume of cases and the large number of
assistant prosecutors. What PROMIS does is attempt to recreate the small town
prosecutor's knowledge of his caseload through the use of modern technology.
Standardized rating schemes, developed by criminologists and statisticians, are
applied to each case and each defendant to provide numerical ratings that give
visibility to the differences among cases and defendants. With these ratings, the
chief prosecutor in a large office can do consciously and deliberately what the
small town prosecutor does more naturally and spontaneously : he can decide
which matters deserve most of his time and concern. That decision, in a big city
office, translates into special, intensive case preparation and monitoring for seri-
ous crimes and habitual offenders.
The standardized technique for rating crimes and defendants also helps solve
another problem of the prosecutor, whether he is from a big city or a small
town. These ratings give the prosecutor an objective basis for assuring even-
handed justice. He can assure that defendants with comparable criminal back-
grounds who commit offenses which are comparable in terms of the amount of
harm done to society are given equal treatment.
Another concept which underlies PROMIS is that the prosecutor is one of the
key administrators in the criminal justice system. What PROMIS does in rela-
tionship to the administrative responsibility of the prosecutor is to collect in
standardized fashion, performance data for statistical analysis. By routinely
collecting and analyzing this data, the prosecutor can identify problems not only
in his own office but in the relationships of the various component criminal jus-
tice agencies as well.
In fact, as I shall make clear later on in my testimony, the performance of
the criminal justice system can be measured in PROMIS through an analysis of
thi-ee of its primary units uf work : the crime, the accused, and the criminal pro-
ceedings.
1 Tl e team was headed by Joan E. Jaeoby. then Director of the Office of Crime Analysis
of the District of Columbia, and Charles R. Work, then Deputy Chief of the Superior
Court Division of the Office of the United States Attorney, Washington, D.C. The project
manager was William A. Hamilton, then Senior Consultant, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell &
Company. Other team members were Sidney H. Brounstein, Robert H. Cain. .Joyce H.
Dertiy. .James M. Etheridge, John L. Gizzarelli, Fred L. Lauder. Ill, Soo Lee. Dean C.
Merrill. Stanley H. Turner, Frederick G. Watts, and Robert Whitaker. Mrs. Jacoby and
Mr. Etheridge are presently the Executive Director and Deputy Executive Director respec-
tively of the .Xntidual Center for Prosecution ^lanagement.
Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Merrill are presently the President and Vice President, respec-
tively of tbe In.stitute for J^aw and Social Research.
= See generally Hamilton. "Modern Management for the Prosecutor," 7 The Prosecutor
472 (1971) ; Watts & Work. "Developing An Automated Information System for the
Prosecutor," 9 Am. Crim. L.Q. — 1970 ; Work, "A Prosecutor's Guide to Automation." 7
The Prosecutor 479 (1971) ; Merrill. "Using the PROMIS Tracking System for Criminal
Justice Evaluation," Proceedings of the International Symposium on Criminal Justice
Information and Statistics Systems 2.31 (1972).
1196
A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROMTS SYSTEM
The types of informatiou contained in PROMIS on each case include:
Information about the defendant. — (Name, alias, sex, race, date of birth, ad-
dress : facts about prior arrests and convictions, employment status, bail status,
and alcohol or drug abuse).
Iv formation about the crime. — (The date, time, and place of the crime, the num-
ber of persons involved in the crime, and information about the gravity of the
crime in terms of the amount and degree of personal injury, property damage, and
intimidation).
Information about the arrest. — (The date, time, and place of the arrest, the
type of arrest, and the identity of the arresting oflBcers) .
Information about criminal charges. — (The charges originally placed by the
police against the defendant and the reasons for changes in the charges by the
prosecutor, the penal statute for the charge, the F.B.I. Uniform Crime Report
name for the charge, and the Project Search name for the charge).
Information about court events. — (The dates of every court event in a case
from arraignment through motion hearing, continuance hearing and final dis-
position to sentencing, the names of the principals involved in each event, includ-
ing the defense and prosecution attorneys and judge, the outcome of the events,
and the reasons for the outcomes), and
Information about witnesses. — (The names and addresses of all witnesses, the
prosec-utor's assessment of whether the witness is essential to the case or not, and
any indications of reluctance to testify on the part of the witnesses).
As mentioned earlier, one of the key features of the PROMIS system is the
automated designation of ratings for pending criminal cases. Based on these
ratings, priorities are assigned by the computer. The ratings are, in turn, based
on an evaluation of the gravity of the crime and the criminal history of the
defendant.
The gravity of the crime is measured in terms of the degree of harm done
to society rather than in terms of the legal nomenclature. A scale developed by
the criminologists, Thorsten Sellin and Marvin A. Wolfgang, which assesses
crime gravity in terms of the extent of personal injury, property damage, and
intimidation, was modified for use in the PROMIS system.^
The gravity of the criminal history of the defendant is assessed by a modified
version of a scale developed by another team of criminologists headed by D.C.
Gottf redson.* That scale examines factors such as the frequency of prior arrests,
the number of previous arrests for crimes against persons, the use of aliases, and
the use of hard narcotics.
In the District of Columbia Superior Court, the calendar is set and controlled
by the court. PROMIS produces an advance list of the eases scheduled by the
court for each calendar date, and ranks the cases according to their priority
crime and defendant ratings. A special team of attorneys intensively prepares
and monitors the cases which are given high priority ratings.
Another key feature of PROMIS is the ability to track the workload of the
criminal court system from three separate vantage points.
From the vantage point of the crime or criminal incident. — This is accom-
plished by including in PROMIS the complaint number which the police depart-
ment assigns to a reported crime. With this number, it is possible to follow the
full history of the court actions arising from the crime even though those court
actions may involve multiple defendants, multiple cases, and multiple trials and
dispositions.
From the vantage point of the accused person or defendant. — This is accom-
plished by incorporating in PROMIS the fingerprint-based number which the
police department assigns to the individual following his arrest, and which is
used again by the department if the same individual is subsequently arrested.
With this number, it is possible to accumulate criminal history files on offenders
and to note incidents of recidivism.
3 Sep T. S»llin and ^r. Wolffr.T.ip, ''The Monsiirement of Dplinqiipncj'," .Tohn Wiley and
Sons. New York (1964). The modifications made to the Sellln-Wolfgang scale were minor.
* See D. Gottfredson and R. Beverlv. "Development and Operational Use of Prediction
Methods in Correctional Work." 1962 (Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section of the
American Statistical Association. Washington, D.C, 1962) : D. Gottfredson and J. Bonds,
"A Manual for Intake Base Expectancy Scoring." April 1, 1961 (Form CDC-BBGIA). Cali-
fornia Department of Corrections, Research Division, Sacramento ; Gottfredson and Bal-
lard. "Differences in Parole Decisions Associated with Decision-Makers," 3 J. Res. in
Crime and Delinq. 112 (1966). Scale modifications were minor.
1197
From the vantage point of the court proceedings. — This is accomplislied by
including in PROMIS the number which the court assigns to the matter pending
before it. With this number, it is possible to trace the history of any formal
criminal action from arraignment through final disposition and sentencing and
to account for the separate fate of each count or charge.
The inclusion of these three numbers is very signilicant. The numbers provide
an "insrant replay" capability to traee the criminal incident, the defendant or
the courr actions. PROMIS was designed in this fashion so that it would become
the central link of Project TRACE (Tracking, Retrieval, and Analysis of Crim-
inal Events), a system designed by the District of Columbia Office of Crime
Analysis to provide a basis tor communication among the agencies of the crim-
inal justice system and the ability to track offenders from arrest through
inci'-ceration.
Another important aspect of the PROMIS system is that explanatory data is
deliberately included to indicate the reasons for each event and disposition. This
rea.son data is acquired as a by-product of the collection of data for the system's
day-to-day operational support functions. For example, PROMIS not only records
the date and the fact that a case was screened out, continued or dismissed, but
also records the reasons the case was screened out, continued or dismissed. The
analysis of reason data enables the prosecutor to study in mucli more detail
the effectiveness of various prosecution policies and procedures.
MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS INDUCED BY PROMIS
The development of the PROMIS system has led to the adoption of a number
of other significant improvements in the management of the office.
One of the primary benefits of developing any information .system is that it
forces management to describe and define the key office functions the system
must support. In the process, weaknesses and redundancies in operations are
made visible and can be corrected. For a PROMIS-type information system,
this forced exercise in descriptive analysis takes on evcii .jrrenter imjiovTance
because the system is meant to be used as a tool for actively enforcing office
policies and priorities. Thus, not only are functional weaknesses exposed, but
also strategies and tactics of prosecution management are subjected to rigorous
definition and review.
An example of the benefits wrought from this process is the Special Litigation
Unit. A special six-man unit was formed within the prosecutor's office to provide
special attention to the high priority misdemeanor cases. This unit provides con-
tinuous, concentrated monitoring of all cases identified as having high priority
by the PROMIS system. Once a case has been flagged as a priority case by virtue
of a high defendant criminal history rating, it is assigned to a member of this
unit. That assistant prosecutor contacts the witnesses, interviews them and per-
sonally arranges for them to be present on the trial date. He reviews the periodic
PROMIS reports on the case to determine whether there are any other pending
cases against the same defendant and, depending upon his finding, may also
contact the defense counsel to ascertain if a plea can be negotiated. The conviction
rate for the priority cases which receive this intensive attention from the Spe-
cial Litigation Unit is approximately 25% higher than for the misdemeanor cases
processed routinely.
Other improvements which have been induced by the proce.ss of developing
and operating the PROMIS system include :
Paralegal Program. — The PROMIS system exposed some important weaknesses
in the recording of precise and accurate explanations of case decisions by assist-
ant pro-secutors. Even without a computer-based system, it is imperative that
prosecution records contain a full accounting of all transactions and the reasons
for the discretionary decisions. With the emphasis in the PROMIS system on
recording reasons for all prosecutorial actions, it soon became apparent that this
requirement for full documentation was not being met satisfactorily. The visi-
bility that PROMIS gave to this problem led to the creation of paralegal positions
in the office. Paralegals have been assigned to the calendar courtrooms to aid the
prosecutor, particularly with regard to the documentation of reasons for trial
dates, continuances, nolle prosequi's and dismisals. Other paralegals are assist-
ing attorneys in the coordination of continuances, the notification of witnesses,
the interviewing of citizens who wish to file complaints, and the preparation of
the necessary documents at the intake and screening stage.
1198
Comprehensive Training Program. — The PROMIS system has also given visi-
bility to performance problems. Disposition rates can be displayed in a variety
of ways which expose training deficiencies. A natural outgrowth of this exposure
has been the development of a comprehensive training program on prosecution
skills and administrative and management skills. A careful examination of the
training needs has been completed for four types of staff : the management level
prosecutor, the line prosecutor, the paralegal, and the administrative support
staff. A curriculum design has been completed for each of these staff types and
case studies, lecture materials, video tapes and other audio-visual aids are being
developed. The curriculum design includes a comprehensive range of subjects
from an overview of the prosecution and criminal justice systems to specialized
prosecution skills.
Directives System.— PROMIS has heightened the consciousness in the office
of policy development and implementation. Consequently, a directives system
is being developed to provide a conceptual framework for the determination and
promulgation of policy and procedures.
OperationaUy-hased Research. — It is expected that another significant benefit
from PROMIS is still to be realized : a research program on the PROMIS data
base. The PROMIS system currently contains complete case histories on approxi-
mately 30,000 closed cases. In addition, the data base is growing by approxi-
mately 1,200 criminal cases per month.
PROMIS II
In February 1973, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,
Harold H. Titus, Jr., made the decision to upgrade the PROMIS system so that
case information could be instantly obtained via terminals placed throughout his
ofl3ce. This new phase in the development of the system has been designated as
PROMIS II. PROMIS II is different from PROMIS in that it is on-line, real-
time system. That is to say, certain pre-formatted questions may be asked di-
rectly of the data base and the answer is flashed back instantaneously on a TV-
type screen. Moreover, PROMIS II is designed to be useful not only to the prose-
cutor's office, but also to the police department.
PROMIS II is presently being operated as a part of a real-time metropolitan
Washington criminal justice communications network which includes a number
of other systems, such as a wanted persons file and a stolen vehicle tag file, and
which is directly linked to the NCIC (National Crime Information Center)
system.
The PROMIS data base contains more than 160 separate items of information
about each case prosecuted in the D.C. Superior Court. Thus, numerous real-
time queries could be designed which would be helpful to the prosecutor and/or
the police. The queries which have been developed thus far are :
The defendant query. — This query makes it possible for the prosecutor or the
police to determine whether or not a given defendant has any other cases
pending in the court system. The fingerprint-based identification number as-
signed by the Metropolitan Police Department is entered via a terminal and the
computer flashes back on a screen the docket numbers and status of each of
the defendant's pending cases. With this status information, the police can
identify those persons who are arrested for crimes while on some form of
pre-trial conditional release. If the identification number is not available, the
defendant's name can be used as the basis of the query.
The court docket number query. — This query enables the prosecutor or police
officer to instantly apprise himself of the pertinent facts and status of any
pending case. For docket number queries, the computer flashes back the
following information: the defendant's name and bail status; the charges;
the arrest date, time and place; the offense date, time and place; the names
of the police officers on the case ; the number and reasons for any continuances
in the case; the crime gravity rating; and the defendant criminal history
rating. ^ ,, ,. ^
The police officer query.— This query enables the prosecutor or the police
officer to determine the number and status of all cases a given officer has
pending By entering the officer's badge number, one can obtain on the screen
a list of all the pending cases in which he is scheduled to testify and the next
court dates for each case. _ ^ a. -a ^«i„^
The case aqing query.—This query enables the prosecutor to monitor delay
at each stage in the criminal proceedings. The prosecutor can specify the type
of case he is interested in, such as misdemeanor cases, cases bound over to the
I
1199
Grand Jury, or felony indictments, and then enter via the terminal any aging
factor of his choosing. For example, he can specify that he wants a list of
all cases which have been awaiting Grand Jury action for more than thirty
days.
The witness query. — This query enables the prosecutor or police officer to enter
the name of a witness in any pending case and immediately determine the docket
number, current status and next trial date for the case.
Other pre-formatted queries are being planned. Another query to be developed
in the immediate future will enable the police district commanders to reciuest
a list of their personnel due in court on an given day. This will enable the
commander to plan and use his staff more effectively.
CONCLUSION
We want to emphasize that we regard PROMIS as a long term project. A
system such as PROMIS in an office as large as ours takes literally years to
establish. This is not to say that the system will not have any short term
payoff; it will. The long term payoff does not come quickly, however.
Inevitably, attempts to substantially revamp concepts, strategies and methods
of operation are not accepted with equal enthusiasm by all. There are some
who decry these new approaches and insist that the only solution to the problems
at hand is to have enough skilled, experienced prosecutors to handle each case
carefully and methodically in the style of the Idealized small town prosecutor.
We are quick to agree that there is no substitute for skilled, experienced
prosecutors and we are emphatic on this point. What we are saying, however, is
that in major urban centers it is unlikely that there will ever be enough skilled.
experienced prosecutors and thus we must provide supplementary tools such as
PROMIS to assure the proper level of performance.
Chairman Pepper. The committee will recess imtil 2 :15.
[Whereupon, at 1 :H0, the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2 :15
p.m., this same day.]
Apternoox Session
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
Let me start with the introductions of our two distinguished wit-
nesses who are to appear this afternoon.
First, Mr. Daniel J. Meador, professor of law. University of Vir-
ginia Law School.
Prof. Daniel Meador, in addition to being a fellow Alabamian with
me, which we discussed at lunch, has had a distinguished legal career.
After receiving his master of laws degree from the Harvard Law
School, Professor Meador was appointed law clerk to Supreme Court
Justice Hugo Black. He subsequently practiced law with an eminent
firm in Birmingham, and was later appointed dean of the law school
at the University of Alabama. For the past 3 years Professor Meador
has been James Monroe Professor of Law at the University of Vir-
ginia Law School.
Professor Meador has been actively involved in researching, devel-
oping, and testing various techniques designed to streamline the crimi-
nal appellate process in the country.
Professor Meador has recently authored a book entitled, "Criminal
Appeals — English Practices and American Reforms." The stated pur-
pose of this publication is not to advocate the adoption of the English
appellate system, but merely to reveal the actual functioning of the
English procedures to interested judges and lawyers to enable them to
make informed decisions as to what procedures could possibly be in-
corporated into the American system.
Professor Meador, under the auspices of the National Center for
State Courts, is now conducting a demonstration project to determine
95-158— 73— pt. 3 16
1200
the effect that a well-managed, professional research staff would have
on increasing the productivity and alleviating the backlog of the ap-
pellate courts. This project is currently in operation in Nebraska, Xew
Jersey, Virginia, and Illinois. Professor Meador indicated that while
a final evaluation of this program has not been conducted, he does be-
lieve that this system will prove to be a vital component to an effective
and efficient appellate process.
Our other distinguished witness to honor us with his presence here
this afternoon is Judge Albert V. Bryan, Fourth Circuit Court of Ap-
peals, Alexandria, Va.
Judge Bryan has had a long and distinguished career as a member
of the Federal bench, beginning with his appointment in 1948 to the
Federal district court. In 1961 Judge Bryan was appointed to sit as a
member of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, a position he cur-
rently retains.
Throughout the course of his career, Judge Bryan has advocated the
streamlining of the appellate process.
By the way, it was on the recommendation of another esteemed
friend and jurist. Justice Tom Clark, that we first learned about tlie
very fine work of Judge Bryan, and he is accountable for the fact we
were able to get in touch with the judge.
It is his firm belief that in order to reduce the time period between
the filing of an appeal and the decision of the court that several com-
monly accepted procedures should be revised or eliminated.
Initially. Judge Bryan would eliminate filing all briefs on appeal,
unless opposing counsel deem them absolutely essential to the case.
In short. Judge Bryan believes the automatic filing of extensive briefs
in every case is a most time-consuming process and should be abolished.
In those cases where written briefs are not filed. Judge Bryan pro-
poses that the appellant be required to file a condensed list of points
made against the order from which the appeal is taken, but that such
list not contain argument of the various points. Inherent in Judge
Bryan's plan is the requirement that the trial judge file with the ap-
pellate court a copy of his charge to the jury, or his findings of fact
and conclusions of law in a nonjury case. Such a requirement, Judge
Bryan urges, would alleviate the need, in most cases, for the trial court
proceedings to be transcribed, usually a case of lengthy appellate
delay.
Incidentally, we just had Judge Weis of the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals testify here yesterday and he was calling to our attention the
use of video tape as a method that can be wisely employed by the court.
Judge Bryan further proposes that if all of the papers or exhibits
filed or lodged at the trial level are forwarded to the appellate court
that there would be little need for any additional written documents
to be brought to the attention of the court.
Under the plan advanced by Judge Bryan, oral argument would
become a vital component of the appellate process.
May I add. in writing to a good friend of mine, John Brown, chief
judge of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, he told me about their
having reduced by 60 percent the number of oral arguments. They try
to eliminate oral arguments as much as they can.
1201
At that time, the opposing counsel would have a full and complete
opportunity to argue their cases, liighlighting any facts they think
crucial to the determination of the case.
Counsel, have you anything to suggest ?
Mr. NoLDK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also wanted to add that Judge Bryan was the rector of the Uni-
versity of Virginia, and it is interesting to note that the first rector
of the university was Thomas Jefferson.
Professor Meador, we are delighted to have you today, witli Judge
Bryan : both of you are eminent and distinguished authorities. We will
be pleased to have an opening statement from you first, Professor
]Meador.
STATEMENTS OF DANIEL J. MEADOH. PROFESSOR. UNIVERSITY OF
VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA., AND HON.
ALBERT V. BRYAN, JUDGE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH
CIRCUIT, ALEXANDRIA, VA.
Mr. Meador. Thank you very much.
It is a great privilege to be here and have a chance to participate in
the discussions. I am honored, also, to have Judge Bryan sitting here
at my right hand. I will have to say that a good many of my ideas and
some inspirations for others have come out of Judge Bryan's ideas, to
which the chairman has just made reference. So I am indebted to him.
I think I can most usefully contribute to the discussions by outlining
an experimental idea that has been put forward now in more than one
quarter, but has not been actually tried anywhere. I might say first
that I have submitted a brief written memorandum for the commit-
tee's use. I will not read that verbatim.
Chairman Pepper. Without objection, the memorandum that you
have offered will be printed in full in the record and you may pro-
ceed to sumarize it in any way you wish.
[The memorandum from Professor Meador, above referred to, will
be found following the testimony of this panel.]
Mr, ^Ieador. Thank you.
The aspect of it I would like to discuss, subject to the committee's
pleasure and any questions about other parts of it, is that portion
which deals with what is called a unified review proceeding of crim-
inal cases.
This proposal can be found in what will be chapter 6 of a report
on the courts that is being published currently by the National Ad-
visory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. That
report is at the printers now. It should be coming out in another
month or so. The same basic scheme can also be found in the book
which the chairman cited on "Criminal Appeals, English Practices,
and American Reform."
The central notion there is that we should structure the review
process in criminal cases so that there is a single review of the con-
viction and the sentence. This idea is derived, or inspired by, I should
say. the English practice. In the English system there is no new trial
motion filed in the trial court ; there is an appeal available, but there
is nothing on the order of the postconviction proceeding. There is no
1202
collateral attack later in the sense that we have it. In other words, there
is a single review proceeding.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me, Mr. Meador. I learned last week at a
conference in England that the defendant goes, if he is sentenced to
prison, he goes right on to prison and, as I understand it, he is serving
in prison while his appeal is being considered.
Mr. Meador. Correct. A very, very small percentage — almost to
the point of zero — of defendants, will be on bail or out pending ap-
peal. That is another reason I suppose why there is the great pressure
to accelerate the process that is characteristic of that system. The
idea of this single review is that the reviewing court, in order to have
a single review and to make it fair, as well as final, necessarily must
go outside the record made at the trial court.
We go outside of the record in this country now on new trial mo-
tions and on postconviction proceedings. We do not go outside the rec-
ord on the direct appeal. The proposal of the unified review nroceed-
ing is simply a consolidation of existing re^aew. Tt is a blendincr into
one proceeding of everything we now do in at least three different
proceedings — the new trial motion, the direct appeal, and postcon-
viction proceeding.
Tt is a novel idea to American lawyers and judges to think about
going outside of the record on an appeal. But I think the novelty
of it goes away somewhat if we stop and think that we do go out-
side the record now, although not on direct appeal. We do it in these
other two ways, new trial motions and postconviction proceedings.
In order to implement fully this concept, it would be necessary.
I think, for the reviewing court to have a staff of lawyers to assist it
because it will be necessary to probe the case, to go beyond the
issues that are asserted by the lawyers, later on, a postconviction
proceeding.
That is the basic idea. There are details about which some questions
mieht he asked.
If I might say another word about the staff idea, apart from the
unified review proceeding the idea of using a staff of lawyers in an
appellate court is an idea that is growing in this country. It is relatively
new. The Michigan Court of Appeals pioneered this idea. In that court,
there are a total of 22 staff lawyers working for the court.
The California Court of Appeals for the First District, which sits
in San Francisco, has a central staff of lawyers. There are a few
others around with small staffs. This, again, is an idea that derives
from the English appellate practice, where there is something known
as the criminal appeals office, which consists of approximately 20 or
so lawyers working for the court in a central research staff.
Wliat a staff does can vary a good deal. Basically, what staffs are
doing so far in this country, in Michigan and in California and a
few other places, is to assist the judges by preparing memorandums
on the appeals when they arrive at the court, and in some cases draft-
Also, they are recommending the oral arg-ument be dispensed with in
ing proposed per curium opinions by which the case can be disposed of.
certain cases where it is not thought to be helpful, and so on. All of
this is by way of assisting the judges, making recommendations to the
judges. They are not designed to displace the judges' role. The judges
still retain full decisional power.
1203
Now, the project that the chairman mentioned, under the aegis of
the National Center for State Courts, has placed staffs in the four
appellate courts that he mentioned, in Nebraska, Illinois, New
Jersey, and Virginia. This is a year-long experimental and demon-
stration project. The purpose of it is to determine the utility of staffs
in appellate courts, how they can best help judges without eroding the
judicial function.
Reports on that will be written late this year, late in 197^>, and
we hope those reports will contribute to our better understanding of
exactly what the utility of the staff is, what are its pitfalls as well
as its benefits.
Mr. Chairman, I think that might be adequate for a general open-
ing statement, but I would be very happy to elaborate in response to
questions.
Chairman Pepper. In the first instance what you are suggesting
is the defendant will be put on notice that if you have anything to
bring up at any time that would impair the judgment which has been
rendered against you, you must bring it to the attention of the ap-
pellate court while your case is being considered by that court, or you
are precluded thereafter from bringing up the subject ?
]\Ir. JNIeadok. Yes, sir. Not only would he be put on notice, but he
and his lawj^er might actually be interrogated, in a sense, by the staff
who is working for the appellate court to be sure there aren't lurking
issues around that aren't getting out.
An analogy to this could be the omnibus hearing that has been tried
at the pretrial stage, in which the judge has a kind of checklist of
possible issues he goes down, to be sure he ferrets out every possible
defeat that might later surface.
Chairman Pepper. In other words, he wouldn't be permitted after
the case had been finally approved by the appellate court to come
back after he had been in prison and bring up a petition of habeas
corpus on the grounds he didn't have counsel in the trial court ?
Mr. jMeador. My view of that is that habeas corpus and all other
collateral remedies could be drastically contracted if we had a unified
review proceeding of this kind. However, for myself, I would not urge
habeas corpus be totally foreclosed. I would leave it available for a
very few and narrow, extraordinary/ situations, in which there had
been a total miscarriage of justice or some defect which totally under-
mined the integrity of the whole proceeding. But certainly it would
be contracted greatly over where it is now. The level of finality of
the conviction would be lifted following the unified review proceed-
ing. The degree of finality would be much greater.
Chairman Pepper. In the English system, is there any other pro-
ceeding permitted at all after the final confirmation of a judgment
by the appellate court?
Mr. Meador. Only in two ways. There is a very narrow ground for
a further view in the House of Lords. That is a discretionary re-
view and is rarely granted. I believe something like three or four cases a
year out of thousands will be heard by the House of Lords. So it is
almost a nonexistent further review. Besides that, though, there is
only the executive clemency. Nothing else judicial is available.
1204
Chairman Pepper. In the first place, please tell us how do you get
the right to an appeal after the British sentence is imposed ? Does the
trial court have authority to allow or disallow an appeal?
Mr. Meador. Most of them come by application for leave. The system
is basically a discretionary appeals system which the defendant would
activate by filing application for leave to appeal, within 28 days
of his conviction. There are a few cases that go up on certifications
from the trial judge, no more than a handful a year, though. Basically,
'90 percent plus of all of the criminal appeals come by way of leave
of court granted on the application or the defendant.
Cliairman Pepper. What sort of a record is presented along with
petition for leave and what is the leave itself? How long a doctrine
is it and what does it contain ?
Mr. Meador. This is reminiscent of Judge Bryan's ideas. There is
a good deal of resemblance between what goes on there and what
Judge Bryan proposes. The defendant will file an application which
is an informal document, something like Judge Bryan's statement
of points. It sets out very briefly the contentions of the defendant
as to why his conviction or sentence ought not to stand. When that
is filed, the trial court will immediately send forward all of the docu-
ments that are in its files, whatever they are. The papers simply go
forward. The court reporter will type up what is called the "Trial
Judo-e's Summing Up to the Jury," which is analogous to his charge
to tlie jury in this country, although it tends to be more elaborate,
because the summing up in England is a summary in detail of all of
the evidence offered.
It is what he tells the jurv in addition to stating the law. That is
typed up immediately and sent forward to the appellate court. The
staff at the appellate court then, on that basis — the basis of the sum-
ming up and the trial documents and the application — decides to what
extent a transcript of the evidence might be desirable. Many cases are
disposed of without a transcript of the evidence at all.
The trial judge's summing up gives a good picture of the proceeding
and the facts. If the staff thinks some testimony is necessary, even the
whole record, it can be ordered and is ordered in a fair number of
cases.
But it is a court decision, a staff decision, not the lawyers' decision,
as to how much of the transcript gets typed up and sent forward.
Chairman Pepper. Is oral argument heard in support of that appli-
cation ?
Mr. Meador. Not as a matter of routine. There is a practice there I
dare say would violate the equal protection clause in this country. If
the defendant has engaged his own private legal counsel, that counsel
will be permitted to make an oral argument on the application for
leave. If the defendant does not haA'e his own counsel, the application
for leave is passed on by the judges without oral argument.
Chairman Pepper. Is that the final consideration of that case by the
couit, or is it kind of like a petition for writ of certiorari, if they grant
the petition thev send the case up? That is the case before the court?
Mr. Meador. Yes. Let me take it in two routes. Tlie application is
initiallv passed on by a sino'le juclffe. If he denies it, the defendant
may, at his option, renew the application, as they say, and then two
other judges will pass on it. If they deny it, that is final.
1205
Chairman Pepper. Three court of appeals judges ?
Mr. Meador. Yes. Three judfres "would have looked at it and if they
deny the application for leaAe, that is final. That is the end of the (^ase.
If the application is granted, either by the single judge or on renewal
before the two others, then it is sot for the full-bloAvn oral argument
before whatever panel of thre^ judges happens to be sitting on the day
it is set. Normally, they will not be the judges who passed on the appli-
cation, but it will be a random roll of the dice as to what three judges
happen to sit.
Then there will be oral argument. Then you have what they call
appeal: the application has been granted. It is an appeal fully on its
merits, argued before three judges by counsel for the defendant and
the prosecution, and decidecl then and there at open court. That is
another important characteristic of that system.
Chair-man Pepper. They decide right there before the court ad-
journs?
Mr. ^Meador. Yes, sir. The court, in eifect, is sitting in conference
throughout the oral argument. They may remain huddled in confer-
ence up there on the bench, however long it takes them to reach con-
clusions.
Chairman Pepper. And they write an opinion: the case rests and
they write an opinion later ?
Mr. Meador. They deliver the o]:)inion orally from the bench then
and there. Only about 15 percent of the opinions are ever printed.
Tliere is a committee that selects for printing those that have some sig-
nificance to the law. Most of them do not; that is also true in this
country, although we print them anyway.
Chairman Pepper. That is very interesting. They are able, there-
fore, to dispose of cases much more quickly and more expeditiously
than we are here.
Mr. Meador. Yes. sir. The system has a lot more flexibility to it. It
isn't in lock step. There are no written brief^^, no time is used for the
writing of briefs. The immediate decision from the bench obviously
expedites the disposition.
Cliairman Pepper. I wanted to ask. also. I have heard some of those
arguments but I have forgotten how long the oral argimient takes
place.
Mr. ^Ieador. There is no fixed time. It is however long the judges
find it useful. My observation is, from sitting in on them, in the crim-
inal cases the entire proceeding will occupy perhaps an hour to an
hour and a half. That is both sides, plus the court's deliberations in
an appeal.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you Professor Meador. Well, judge, sup-
pose we ask you to proceed and then we can make further intjuiry.
Statement of Hon. Albert V. Bryan
Judofe Bryan. All right, sir.
Really, what I deal with is the mechanics of the appeal rather than
the legality or the scholarship of this step.
For years I have simply had an obsession against the time that is
required from the termination of the district court's proceedings until
the case gets on the court of appeals' dock?t. I have submitted to you,
1206
along with my statement, certain amendments I would hope would
somewhat cure that situation.
Chairman Pepper. Without objection, your statement submitted
will be printed in full in the record. You may summarize it as you will.
[The prepared statement of Judge Bryan will be found following
the testimony of this panel.]
Judge Bryan. Tb ank you.
I submitted this to the Federal Judicial Center. That is when I
think Mr. Justice Clark heard it. I thought your question was going
to be if tliey are so good, why weren't these suggestions adopted by
our own circuit ?
Now, my only answer to that is, my powers of persuasion were in-
adequate, I hope.
Chairman Pepper. Great ideas sometimes take a long time to get
accepted.
Judge Brtais". My amendments wouM transfer tlie case to the
appellate court within a few days after tlie district court lias finished
with it. ]My aim is to put the case on the appeals docket for argument
within 60 days instead of the present .'-Vo months, which is permis-
sible and which is the minimum under the present rules.
To give you a step-by-step account of what are the mechanics when
you finally get a decision in the district court, the appellant has 10
days for filing his notice of appeal. That is if he is a non-Government
appellant. The Government has 30 days in which simply to note it.
In either event, that may be extended for excusable delay, so that you
can see that it can go up to 60 davs before a notice of appeal is even
filed.
Then 40 days is the time limit for the transmission of the record
from the trial to the appellate court. This may be extended to 90 days.
Then there is 40 days from the transmission of the record given
the appellant for filing his opening brief; 30 days is then given for
the filing of appellee's brief, but that does not commence until he
has received the appellant's brief; 14 days are allowed for the ap-
pellant to reply.
Now, in those steps, I want to dwell more on the transmission of
the record from the trial court insofar as the record must include a
transcript of the proceedings below.
If yon add those steps, you get 134 days, or 41/2 months, or it may
be extended by such extensions as I have already indicated, to carry
wa V beyond the 41/2 months.
But the mo^t serious delay of all, and really the obstacle in the way,
is tlie preparation of the transcript of the trial proceedings for in-
clusion in the record.
On my way over here I met one of the district judges and he asked
me where I was p-oinjr. and he said, "For goodness sakes, get rid of
the transcript of the evidence."
The blame for this is not attributable to the trial court, nor to the
attorneys, nor to the reporter. It is attributable to the inability of
the reporter to make the transcription, inasmuch as there is only one
renorter for each judge.
Since the reporter is required to attend dailv sessions of the trial
court the transcript can only be prepared in his spare time. It is in his
1207
inability to do that, that defers the schedule fixed by the rules. It just
isn't practicable to comply with them.
The point I am very anxious to make is that the transcript of evi-
dence be not required at the time the case goes on the docket. As Mr.
Meador has just said, it can be dispensed with without harm or hurt
to anyone. It certainly ought not to be prepared until after the case is
on the appeals docket'because only then can it be seen if it is important.
Xow, the late Judge Parker of our fourth circuit said it wasn't any
use in having the transcript of evidence any wa}' because nobodv looked
at it. That has been by experience and I think it is the experience of
most appellate judges. It is the rarest thing that you look at the tran-
script. We certainly don't need it before the argument because you have
got in the record at that time the pleadings in the case, and if a criminal
case, the indictment. You have in a civil case the findings and conclu-
sions of the district judge. Li both cases you have the judge's charge to
the jury, in which he outlines generally what the facts are and what the
legal issues are and what the conflicts are, so the jury may more readily
resolve them.
So my really first point and almost sole point of emphasis is to do
away with this requirement of the transcript of tlie evidence unless
and until it becomes vitally necessary. And that will be very rare.
Now, the argument opposed to that would be : what are you going
to do if the matter on appeal is a motion to set aside the verdict for
inadequecy of the evidence? That trouble is more apparent than real.
Because, if the review goes to the adequacy of the evidence, every
practitioner knows that does not embrace all of the evidence, including
all of the exhibits. The points made on that motion are as to certain
particular parts of the evidence — their relevancy, their admissibility,
and their general connection with, their germaneness to, the case.
These would appear, these points would appear, in the exceptions
taken to the charge. You would note right there what part of the evi-
dence was in dispute. Rarely will it be the content of the evidence, I
would say, but rather the point of the evidence and that could be
argued without looking at the whole record. If need be, after the
argiu^ient of the case, the court could send for those parts.
Not only that, there would rarely be clifferenre between counsel as to
what was the evidence on a point. Generally, the debate is whether it
should have come in at all, and next, what connection it has with the
case.
I am just anxious to accentuate, or rather accent, that the transcript
should not be called for until after the case has been heard in argument.
Another point of objection is, what are you going to do when there
is a change in counsel between the trial level and the appellate level?
And that frequently occurs in indigent cases — habeas corpus cases —
when the appellant will say he was not represented competently and
he wants a new lawyer.
Well, the first answer to that is there should not be a too-ready
release of counsel by the trial court. All sorts of charges are made
against you when you are representing one of these fellows, and every
time one makes some criticism, he certainly should not be entitled to a
new lawyer. It is the obligation of the first lawyer to stay in the case
until it is prejudicial to his client to remain.
1208
But if a new counsel is brought in, the substitute counsel may obtain
a summary of the case very readily by looking at what is already in
the record. If it is a criminal case, he sees the indictment. And also in a
criminal case, he reads the issues that the judge has presented to the
jury, which indicates to him what the case is about. In a civil case, he
has the complaint and he has the answer and he has the exhibits and
almost everything that will apprise him of the content and substance
of the case.
There is really no reason to put the Government to the expense of
writing up an enormous transcript that wouldn't be used. Nobody will
look at it and I doubt that the new counsel, himself, will look at it. He
will have the trial briefs, memorandums that are submitted on the
motions to set aside the verdict, or motions to modify the findings. All
of that will convey to him the nature and character of the case.
But even further than that, the fraternity among lawyers is such that
the first lawyer is perfectly willing to give to his substitute full infor-
mation of what the case is all about.
So it seems to me that objection is exaggerated.
Now, in my — ^not mine — ^but in the proposed rules, the appellant is
required to file immediately a statement of the issues. That is not any
hardship on him because the present rules require in preparation of the
briefs that that very statement be embodied. So it is simply a question
of putting it first or putting it last. And that is another paper that
would bring to the attention^of the appellate court what the case is all
about.
I have been asked several times, well, how would the court know what
the case was about? The court would know perfectly well from the
pleadings and from the statements of the issues, from the exhibits,
from the charge, and all of the papers that no appellate judge would
be confounded by for a moment. It could look at them and take the case
up from there.
Another important step in expedition is in reducing the time for
filing briefs. You will recall that the present rules fix 40 days from
the transmission of the record as the time for the filing of the ap-
pellant's brief.
Well, now, the re'^ord is supposedly available Mnthin 40 days, so
appellants 40 days for briefing do not start, until that date arrives.
Then there is 30 flays for the appellee to file after that expiration, and
it seems to me it is a rather prolonged time, but he has 80 days from
the time he receives the appellant's brief in which to file this. Then
added to that, the appellant has 14 days in which to file a rebuttal
brief.
As I say. all of this comes to 134 days. So that the preparation of
the transcript and the preparation of the briefs really are the time-
consuming steps in this inter^^al.
T am hopeful that the briefs, as Mr. IMeador has just mentioned,
could be in time disposed of. Wlien a case is appealed, immediately
upon its conclusion is the time at which the lawyers are most aware
of what is in the case. Their knowledge of it is at the very best at
that time. As a matter of fact, they are just burning with the cause.
They have argued motions to set aside the verdict, or to grant certain
charges, and they have lost.
1209
Now, they are full of that jn?t as soon as they come out of the
courtroom, tf yon meet them on the steps, they will tell yon all about
it. That will cool after 134 days and then they will i\eed time to
prepare tlie briefs.
^ly hope is that just as soon as the case comes to an end in the dis-
trict court, the papers will be sent immediately to the appeals clerk.
to<xether with the statement of counsel as to what are the issues. The
court of appeals will then be in a position to examine it — that will
just be a mattei- of a few days — and hear aro^inient
But as an alternative, if the first suffofcstion — the absolute omission
of briefs — is a little too radical, it seems to me that you could adopt a
system of sinmltaneous briefs. T have been in cases as counsel that
have lasted for months and at the end of the rase, instead of haA'ing
40 days in which to file an openinof brief and then 30 days for reply,
for each side was to be given 30 days in which to file a brief simulta-
neously.
The appellee knows what the appellant is goinfr to argue because he
has already heard the argument in the nisi prius court. Appellant
Icnows what the issues are. He can argue his case in his brief exactly
like he finished arguing it in the district court.
The appellee is at no disadvantage in that he laiows exactly the
same thing. He knows what the appellant is going to put in his brief.
As a safeguard, T would suggest in addition to that, each side be
given 10 days to reply to the other's brief. With the dispensing of the
necessity of printing of briefs, he can very readily prepare one brief
in 30 days and another in 10 days, when he is full of the case, as he
will be immediately upon the cessation of the trial.
Chairman Pkpper. Excuse me. Judge. Within what time did you
recommend that the appeal be lodged in the appellate court ?
Judge Bryan. Just as soon as the clerk can compile the papers that
are on file there, and just as soon as the jud^e files his findings and his
charire. All of which will be right in his hand. And just as soon as the
appeal is noted, he will hand those over to the clerk: the clerk mav
require a week or 10 days to compile what he has there, then put it in
the hands of the appellate court.
So it ought not to be more than a week or 2 weeks before the court,
the appellate court,, has everything that it needs.
Chairman Pepper. And the appellant would file, send up to the
appellate court, a simple notice of appeal ?
Judire Brtax. He would have to file his notice of appeal, and then
these proceedings would begin after he filed his notice of appeal.
Chairman Pepper. Along with his notice of appeal, would he file
points of appeal ?
Judffe Bryax. T <rive him. a few days after that to file them. But the
whole thing wouldn't take more than a couple of weeks.
If we can just get over the obstacle of the transcript of the evidence,
that alone would accomplish a tremendous curtailment of this time.
I have taken the liberty to outline here what I think would bo a fair
and reasonable time schedule for theso steps to be taken. First, to allow
7 days for filing notice of appeal. I think as lawyers, we have to begin
to commence thinkinfr in a few davs. rather than 30. fiO. and 00 davs.
Give him 7 days for filing the appeal. It is a simple process. A-NHiy give
1210
the Government 30 days, with an extension of 30 more, or 60 days?
They know right fromthe time the verdict is brought in if either side
is ffoing to note an appeal.
Chaii-man Pepper. What about the motion of the defendant for
new trial ?
Judge Bryan. Tlie motion of the defendant for a new trial would
have been disposed of.
Chairman Pepper. By what time?
Judge Bryan. Before the time vou get to the appeal.
If you allow 7 davs for the filing of appeal, rather than possibly 60
davs,'and then 7 days thereafter for filing the statement of the issues,
and 5 days more for the judge to file the jury charge or his findings
and conclusions, these are very generous, I think, allowances of times.
And 30 days for simultaneous briefs, and 10 days for each side for
reply briefs. That would bring it to a total of 59 days, which is cer-
tainly an improvement upon the 134 days. There may be some exten-
sions here but it is down about 60 days.
I am thoroughly convinced, although I am quite partisan on the
subject, that it can be done, even if it may be a radical idea. ]Most
lawyers are not used to making radical changes, but it seems to me that
the time has come when we have to think along those lines.
Chairman Pepper. What about the oral argument in the appellate
court.
Judo-e Bryan. In the fourth circuit we allow 30 minutes to a side.
Chairman Pepper. Did you allow oral argument as a matter of
rijrht?
Judo-e Bryan. As a matter of right, unless it appeared immediately
from the initial papers that there was really no substance to the case
and that it was not entitled to argument. Then we put it on what is
called a screened docket, and it would be preserited to three judges
and if they come to the same conclusion, an order is then entered, either
affirming or reversing, and the case does not go on the call for oral
argument. It is only those cases that can get through the screening that
come on the argument calendar.
I am delighted to answer any question that you may have.
Chairman Pepper. Judge, as I mentioned earlier yesterday here
we had Judge TVeis, who .<?ave instances of the valuable use of the
videotape. He had an exhibition here on a TV set of the use of one
of these videotapes in respect to a deposition that was taken by the
prosecuting attornev interrogating the defendant in a case.
The defendant's lawyer was there and the defendant was notified
that the machine was operating, and the videotape was being made.
He pointed out how that could be used to enable the court — ^that was,
of course, the trial court primarily : but it could be used in the appel-
late court, too — to pass his own opinion as to whether or not that
statpment was voluntarily made, and the like.
Hp would have a chance to see the person making the statement, in
addition a confession was being questioned. The videotape exhibited
th(^ prosecntinc attornev and the police official and the defendant's
attorney. In that case, there was not a defense attorney in the room,
bnt lie. r»rf^viou«lv agreed that the interrogation might be had and he
cave the statement.
1211
Then he suggested tlie uses of it, that it might well be you could
make a tape recording of a whole trial and the court could just look at
it, take the testimony. He pointed out how you could save all of this
transcribing time. All of that would be on videotape and it would be
available immediately.
Judge Bryan. It would be a tremendous improvement.
Chairman Peppek. The question came up on the appellate court, for
example, that some particular part of the evidence was very pertinent.
It could be turned to and they could see it and hear what the testi-
mony was.
In other words, he was proposing to make use of the best techniques
we now have available mechanicalh' to aid the court also in deter-
mining and expediting procedures.
Do you know of any instance where your court has ever considered
that sort of thing ?
Judge Bryax. No. We have considered the possilnlity of record-
ing the case on tape, as the proceeding. Not with TV. The difficulty
there has been to indicate who was talking. The reporter has to sit
there and say, now, Mr. A, and then he would be interrupted suddenly,
and Mr. B would come in, and you just couldn't really intelligently
follow it.
But with the video, you would see who was talking and I would
think it would be a great improvement. That would overcome the
big obstacle that has been worrying the judges, and that is the prepara-
tion of this transcript of evidence. That would be dispensed with. But
I don't know if that will ever reach that point.
Chairman Pepper, "^^^len you were speaking about the briefs, did
you have in mind printed briefs?
Judge Bryax. No, sir. I just meant it would be typewritten briefs,
just so they were clear and understandable. We have that rule now.
You need not have your brief printed. That saves a lot of time and
would save that span that is now allotted for the filing of briefs. So
much of that is taken up in the printing.
Chairman Pepper. Well, there are two aspects of what both of
you gentlemen have said that occur to me. One was, the district at-
torney for Los Angeles County appeared before this committee in the
latter part of 1969, at some of our early hearings. He confined his testi-
mony to the frustration that the district attorney had about a case
under our system ever becoming final. It took a long time to get the
appeal lodged and then more extensive time to get it disposed of. and
then when you thought the case was finally all settled, then along come
some more collateral attacks upon the validitv of the judgment and
the like.
He was strongly emphasizing the necessity of trying to finalize the
disposition of the case, the final adjudication of the case.
Then the other thing was : Whereas in England you don't have the
question of bail because the defendant, if he is sentenced to prison,
is incarcerated immediately. You don't have the bond question.
Reducing the bail problem, itself, has considerable difficulty about
it. There have been differences of opinion about what you ought to do
about bail. But it is imperative that if you don't have to wrestle with
the problem of what to do about bail, and you keep these people from
1212
being liable to the commission of other offenses, you reduce this time
between the adjudication of the case in the trial court and the final
disposition of it, so the defendant will go on to prison.
Under our federal system and in several of our States, after the
court of appeals, I believe you can take — it has been a good long while
since I handled a case — I believe you have 90 days to file writ of cer-
tiorari for the Supreme Court, and that takes some more time. You
have more time for that. So a lot of times defendants use all of these
time allotments as a way of delaying going to jail, going to prison.
Judge Bryan. You put your finger on the very point that has
spurred my interest in this, and that is the public's reaction. They
read about a trial, a heinous offense, and it is very important, and tliere
is a verdict of guilty, and then the last paragraph in the paper says,
"Defense counsel has noted an appeal.'' Then the public thinks that
is the end of it. Then they never hear of it any more. It is going into
oblivion. It is most discouraging.
If that case could be gotten into the court of appeals within a short
time, 30 or 60 days, the public would not be so critical of our processes.
Chairman Pepper. Well, now, could the api)el!ate courts, if we could
simply file some of these procedures that you gentlemen have sug-
gested here, keep relatively current on their dockets and things?
Judge Bryax. I think they could, but at least you keep the cases
from being stale. There is nothing worse to work on than a cold case.
I think that the judges would make extra effort to be just as expedi-
tious as the process.
Chairman Pepper. I think Judge Brown of the Fiffli Circuit Court
of Appeals told me that his court tries to get the final opinion out in a
case before that court as near 30 days after the case is ready for con-
sideration in the court as possible, and they seldom go beyond 45 days.
They try never to go beyond 45 days from the time the case is ready
for consideration in that court.
Is the fourth circuit relatively current with its docket, Judge ?
Judge Bryan. Yes, we are. The median time in the fourth circuit
from the notice of appeal to argmnent is 143 days. The median time
from notice of appeal to decision is 191 days. So they decide the case
in the difference between 43 and 91 — within 48 days.
Chairman Pepper. Well, now, it is difficult for me to understand how
anything so rational and so desirable as you gentlemen have just
presented here today should take so long to get favorable acceptance
in the American Bar Association and Judicial Conferences, and the
Congress and various public authorities who deal with these. Every-
body is talking about crime and the polls show it is considered by most
people as the No. 1 problem in the country. And yet these
things relate directly to dealing directly with the problem of crime,
and why is there so much inertia about taking a more judicial look at
it ? What would you say, Mr. Meador ?
Mr. Meador. In the' last year or two I have run into that problem
in the various projects and researches I have been trying to do. I do
notice, repeatedly, in different parts of the country, in different types
of courts, a national pattern that judges and lawyers are simply extra-
ordinarily reluctant to try something really new. They tend to want
to see it already working somewhere else. So the question is who goes
first with something. Nobody wants to do it first. This is why I have
1213
developed the idea tliat the most practical way to bring about a lot of
these changes may be through the provision of money. If enough
money is made available through some kind of funding or grant scheme
to a court or to a prosecutor or public defender's office or all of these
together, perhaps the temptation and the availability of all of those
funds will more readily persuade some of the groups and lawyers and
judges to try things, at least experimentally.
There is also a reluctance to think about experimenting in the
judicial process. Experimenting is a novel notion to lawyers and
judges. There is a legitimate concern about not wanting to play fast
and loose with a person's rights in a criminal case. Nonetheless, I think
there is room for carefully designed experimentation which will not
prejudice anyone's rights and yet will reveal to us whether something
will work or not work.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I might take just a minute or two to
elaborate on a comment of Judge Bryan's ?
Chairman Pepper. We would be glad to have either one of you com-
ment on the proposals made b}^ the other, if you would.
Mr. Meador. Judge Bryan's review of his proposals, as I said
earlier, strikes a very sympathetic chord with me. I might point out to
the committee that his notion of lawyers on fire with their case at the
close of the trial and therefore in better position right then than any
other time to come forward with the appeal has been picked up by
Judge Shirley Hufstedler of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. She has come along with a proposal for a very accelerated
review process in which the lawyers who conducted the trial would
appear promptly before the reviewing court, usually without a
transcript, and present an oral argument.
This has many similarities to some of Judge Bryan's ideas. There
are two places where her ideas are set forth. I might just cite for the
committee's information in the record. One is in 44 Southern Cali-
fornia Law Review 901, and the other is in 46 Los Angeles Bar Bulletin
275.
The other comment I wanted to make has to do with the transcri])t.
In my work over the last year or two around the country, I have indeed
found that what Judge Bryan says is certainly true, that one of the
biggest points of delay in the appellate process of the criminal cases
is the production of the transcript. I generally share Judge Bryan's
notion that many, many appeals couid be very fairly disposed of with-
out a transcript. My view of that is reinforced by what I see to be the
practice in England. However, I should add here, that when I have
broached this idea around the country with judges and various groups,
I find there to be a good deal of opposition to that. Many judges and
lawyers seem to have some deep-seated sense of insecurity in proceed-
ing with an appeal M'ithout a full transcript. Whether or not they in
fact are going to need it, they seem to want it there to reassure them
that they are dealing fully and fairly with the case.
Judge Bryan. It is a fetish with them.
Mr. IVIeador. It is a kind of security blanket. Because of that, a
number of judges and lawyers say that rather than try to construct
a system in which we can get by witiiout all of the transcript, a better
approach would be to provide whatever resources and money are nec-
essary to get the transcripts produced quickly. In other words, they
1214
argue: Let's just accept that the majority of American lawyers and
judges want that transcript, and therefore let's just provide whatever
resources it takes to get it, if it is hiring more court reporters, more
typists.
A new idea has been developing here that may provide some solu-
tion to this, and that is the computer. I don't know whether the com-
mittee has been exposed to the idea of computerized production of
transcripts.
Chairman Pepper. We haven't discussed that. If you liave any com-
ment, we would be glad to have it.
Mr. Meador. I have seen demonstrations of this, and the committee
might consider looking at the demonstration. Here is a place where
some funding might achieve a real breakthrough. The process has been
perfected fairly well, as I understand it. The process employs the regu-
lar court reporter with a stenotype keyboard, that type of key]:)oard.
The data from the stenotype keyboard is fed directh' into a computer
bank. There is a translation mechanism in there : a vocabulary is set
up in the computer. A transcript is available immediately on print-
out. There is a system for correcting errors in it, which can be per-
formed in a matter of minutes, the error-correction process. So an hour-
ly or daily transcript can be had. A transcript of a very lengthy trial
can be had at the close of the trial within less than a day's time. There
is one company and maybe others working on it and it has been de-
veloped fairly well. I think in the funding, it is expensive.
Chairman Pepper, I was in a case one time, a big civil case, where it
cost $1,000 a day to get a transcript of the record during the night so
we would have it to use late in the night and the first thing the next
morning. Think what a saving it would be if such a thing were made
available,
Mr. Meador. A demonstration of this was made last August at the
American Bar Association meeting in San Francisco. It was sponsored
by the section of judicial administration.
Xow, another aspect of the transcript, another approach to the tran-
script problem, is being taken in the southern district of New York,
U.S. district court. There, at the close of a trial, if a guilty verdict is
returned, and if the U.S. attorney is of the view that an appeal is
likely, he immediately orders the transcript the day the guilty verdict
is returned. He orders afull transcript without waiting to see whether
the defendant will in fact take an appeal. He makes a prediction an
appeal is likely, and it turns out his prediction is accurate to a very
high degree. This means the transcript preparation process gets
launched immediately and the court of appeals there gets the trans-
scripts usually within 30 days. That is another approach.
There are some statistics on that in a report, a document which I
could supply the committee if it desires to see it. This document is a
brief report on criminal appeals made by a newly created entity called
the Advisory Council on Appellate Justice, This is a body of judges
and lawyers and law professors that acts as an advisor to the Federal
Judicial Center and National State Court Center on appellate matters.
If the committee desires, I can supply a copy of that report.
Chairman Pepper. We would be pleased to have you do it, unless we
can conveniently get it from the Library of Congress.
1215
Mr. Meador. I doubt it is readily available. "We can send a copy with
no difficulty.
Chairman Pepper. Counsel tells me we already have this.
Anything else ?
Mr. Meador. No, sir; that concludes my comments at the moment.
Chairman Pepper. Judge, have you anytliing to say about any of
the suggestions made by Professor Meador ^
Judge Bryan. Yes. What he said brought to mind, we have a rule,
I have forgotten exactly how it reads, that a transcript must be asked
for if it is to be sought, within a certain time. I don't know if it is
as prompt as Mr. Meador has experienced. But even with that, you
have one person that can get it out. That same person has to go into
court day after day, and he or she, when do tliey have a chance to
get it out.
The funding of it would, of course, help to have at least two re-
porters. It would cut down this obstruction of transcript that we now
are confronted with.
Chairman Pepper. I wouldn't want to displace all of these very
comjoetent court reporters we have, but they pointed out here yester-
day it costs relatively little to make these video tapes. Just assuming
you set the thing up in the room or set it up hei-e so it would be record-
ing what was going on in the course of the trial, for example, and
then that could simply be set up, that video tape, and you could have
one of those reproducing machines in the appellate courtrooms. If the
lawyer says so and so and so an so is relevant, I guess there would be
some wav somebodv could turn it to that. He could give notice about
that, what part he thought of the court proceeding — and take example
and plav it — that was obviously intimidated during the time he gave
the confession and the like, and the lower court was in error. And he
could show it, how the man looked.
The last thing I would like to ask is, Do you think this matter
should be left to the courts and to the agencies that are already work-
ing toward the process of expediting the criminal justice system struc-
turing or should Congress in the Federal area, the legislatures the
State areas, try to cut through the reluctance of the courts and lawyers
to do these things and to try to provide for it by legislation ?
Judge Bryax. I think the present chief justice is very, very con-
cerned with it. He would welcome any views this committee for-
mulated.
Chairman Pepper. I know the chief justice has taken a great inter-
est in trying to improve the system, and as you say, I am sure would
welcome any proper procedures that wc expedite.
^Vliat do you tliink. Professor Meador ? Plave you tried to get some
regulation to accomplish some of these things ?
Mr. Meador. Well, that is a little difficult to answer in general, or
in abstract. The kinds of proposals Judge Bryan makes could better,
I think, be handled through the rulemaking power of the courts
themselves, if they will do it. The problem there is how does tliat
machinery get activated. How does the inertia get overcome? M}^
own disposition would be to try to get action wherever it could be
gotten. Certainly in those matters that take funding, the Congress
or the State legislatures would have to act, and as I said a moment ago,
it may be provisions of funds will get us to a breakthrough better than
anything else.
95-15S— 73— pt. 3 17
1216
I don't know qnite the kind of legislation I would have in mind that
would provide funds, but I am sure something could be devised that
would make funds available possibly to the State as well as Federal
courts for various kinds of experimental procedures.
The LEAA through its block grant program is doing some of that.
There is money flowing to the State courts through that channel, and
we are getting some innovative programs and some efforts taking place
there.
Any restructuring of the machinery obviously would take legisla-
tion. For example, tlie experimental unified review notion I outlined
at the beginning would probably take legislation because it restruc-
tures the channels of review.
Chairman Pepper. Well, this is the final passage from a bill we
have on immigration. Gentlemen, I want to apologize to you that
we didn't realize there were going to be as many amendments as
offered on the floor this afternoon, and the other members, I know, had
expected to be here to hear most of you. But this is one record our
members are going to read, because we have to make a lot of recom-
mendations to the Congress about it.
I just wanted to ask, finally, are you getting more responsiveness
from the judicial conference and the other judicial agencies about these
innovations. Judge Bryan? Are they beginning to be more attentive
to such suggestions as yours ?
Judge I3ryax. I can't say that they are. I do know that the Chief
Justice has endeavored to develop interest in the subject. And getting
back to your earlier question, a lot of these things may require more
flexible action than legislation could provide.
Chairman Pepper. I agree with you that it would be desirable to
have it by rule of court and then you could notify the rule as experience
dictates.
Judge Bryan. But some action from Congress would certainly help
it.
Chairman Pepper. Maybe we can stimulate and encourage the
process.
Gentlemen, I do want to thank j^ou very much.
]Mr. Xolde. Professor Meador and Judge Bryan, we are very im-
pressed with your ideas expressed today. I am sure that putting them
into effect would tremendously improve on our appellate process.
One of the things that seems to bother judges in proposing to elimi-
nate briefs and transcripts, from the cases being decided on appeal,
is the question what does the judge need to have in front of him
upon which to base his decision on appeal. Would you address that
issue ?
Judge Bryan. I covered that in this memorandum. I think he does
have enough basis upon which to decide the case, without lengthy writ-
ten briefs. He has everything that the lower court had. Then he has
the points in issue that gives him the contents of the case, and then
in the arguments he will see what is stressed and what is to be con-
sidered. Then at the end of that, he has his tape recording after
argument that can refresh his mind.
Mr. Nolde. Professor Meador, do you have an opinion as to the
British system on that point?
1217
Mr. MrADOR. It could bo stnu'tured in variou.s ways, but for illustra-
tion, he would have the defendant's statement of i:)oints, or statement
of issues that Judge Bryan refers to, which I said a moment ago is
analogous to the apj)lication of leave to appeal filed in England. This
would be not a totally bare bones listing of points or issues, but might
have a paragraph accompanying each one, which would set out in a
nutshell the defendant's argument of what his theory was. In other
words, there would bo a few sentences of explanation; a capsule argu-
ment in effect would be accompanying each point.
This document would not be over two oi- three pages in total length.
So the judge could see the essence of the arguments that were being
thrust upon him. Then he would have all of the other papers that
Judge Bryan mentions. Then he could have the oral argument, at
which the matter could be developed.
Now, in my ideas that I have developed here, I would introduce
a lot of flexibility by having a staff lawyer there to make suggestions
and recommendations to help the judges. For example, if upon ex-
amining the statement of points that had been filed, and looking
at all of the other papers, it appears that some issue was such that
a written brief is desirable, a point needs more elaborate or further
development, and the court needs the help of the lawyers at greater
length, a brief can be ordered. The lawyers could be instructed to
file briefs.
It seems to me it is important to have a flexibility about it. The
problem with the present system is that it is sort of a lock-step system,
having no relationship to the complexities or difficulties of the case.
The simplest case goes through the same long, drawn-out elaborate
procedure as the most difficult, complex case. So I would introduce
flexibility, dispense with briefs when the}' aren't really needed, order
them when they are. Then you can order them filed simultaneously
by identifying the issues to be addressed, which would save more time.
Mi\ NoLDE. I suppose where briefs are filed automatically the
tendency is for lawyers to file 60-page briefs and nearly always go
into every detail of the case.
Judge Bryax. Then you have such a duplication. You have it in
the briefs and then you have it laid before you orally, and most
lawyers follow their briefs verbatim.
Mr. XoLDE. Under the British system they don't file written briefs?
Mr. Meador. Xo written briefs at all.
Mr. XoLDE. And it seems to be working?
Mr. INIeador. Yes. You do have to keep in mind in evaluating that,,
they have a smaller body of law to w^ork. They do have fewer complexi-
ties in that they don't have a Federal system, for example, where you
have the constitutional interplay. So you do have to keep those things
in mind. But even so, there is enough there to warrant some modified
experimentation with it.
Mr. XoLDE. You wouldn't feel it would place an undue burden
upon the person making oral argument to be a very effective oral
advocate.
Mr. Meador. I think it would improve the quality of oral argument
if the lawyer knew this was his one and only time to communicate
with the court, that he had to develop his case there. I think a lawyer
would pay more attention to it.
1218
Mr. NoLDE. And you feel our bar could rise to the occasion?
Mr. Meador. I think so. I think lawyers in the main do what is
expected of them.
Jud<;e Bryan. The explication that is given to the circumstance
that there are no briefs, is that the appeals court in England does not
limit the time or argument. That is said to make up for the absence
of briefs.
Mr. NoLDE. Speaking of pressures, does the fact that defendant in
England remains in prison pending appeal contribute to expediting
the appeal process?
Mr. Meador. I think it does to an extent. It also removes what I
think we have in many of our courts, and that is an artifi'^ial incentive
to appeal. I don't have data to prove it. We are collecting it now in the
appellate justice project. But I have a suspicion a number of appeals
are taken merely to prolong the day of incarceration. The availability
of bail pending appeal is an artificial inducement to an appeal in many
cases, I think.
Mr. NoLDE. Would you recommend in our country that defendants
go to jail immediately after sentencing, pending appeal ?
Mr. Meador. I am not prepared to recommend that fully. My ap-
])roach is to try to expedite the process greatly. I haven't come to a
conclusion in my own mind about wdiat I want to recommend about
bail or no bail pending an appeal.
Judge Bryan. One instance, to get at my thought on it, a friend of
mine who was the proprietor of a motel was attacked one night by
two men who threw him to the floor and drew knives on him and so
on, and they were arrested. He met them on the street 2 or 3 daj's after
that. They had been bailed immediately.
Mr. NoLDE. Regarding the central research staff, which seems to me
a fundamental aspect in the British system, what is the primary reason
■we haven't been able to put such procedure into effect here? I Imow
they are doing it in Michigan. Is it because of a reluctance on the part
of judges to try new things, or a lack of funds ? It would seem that this
would be an obvious improvement which we should be accepting almost
automatically. If we can get some professionals to come in and do
screening, why not just go ahead and do it if you have the money ?
]^»Ir. Meador. Certainly a lack of funds is an obstacle and maybe not
a minor one, but more fundamentally, I think, there is a legitimate
concern here about the erosion of the judicial function, or at worst,
abdication of it by the judges. Theie is that specter around.
My hope is the appellate justice project of the National State Court
Center v/ill contribute toward a greater understanding of the proper
role of staff and will delineate how staff can be utilized without erod-
ing the judicial function. That is an important and difficult question,
and I don't have firm conclusions myself about it. Judges though for
years have used individual law clerks. They no longer worry about
abdicating their function merely because they have a law clerk work-
ing with them, so why not a central research staff providing certain
kinds of assistance ?
Mr. NoLDE. The judge should really concentrate his own time on the
most important aspect.
Mr. Meador. I do think we need to be careful about too fast a move-
ment, too much of a movement in that direction, until we Icnow a little
more about it, and I hope the project will shed light on it.
1219
Mr. NoLDE. How is the project workinc:?
Mr. MiLVDOR. The Michigan judges lilce it very mncli. This hasn't
been scientifically and objectively evaluated. The judges believe they
get a lot of valuable help. They do not think they abdicate their func-
tion. They also think it increases their productivity and expedites the
time.
Mr. NoLDE. Judge Bryan, do you have a comment ?
Judge Bryan. No. My concern is just to get some movement.
Mr. NoLDE. Arc you worried about all of the technicalities?
Judge Bryax. Get this thing rolling, so to speak. You loiow all of
the committees, and we have had a lot of committees. As you men-
tioned a minute ago, it just doesn't seem to take hold. I really think
it is due to the conservativeness of our judges. As one of them, I know
I am pretty slow to take on new ideas.
Mr. NoLDE. Professor Meador, what is your position on plea
bargaining?
ISIr. Meador. You mean am I for it or against it?
Mr. NoLDE. Yes.
Mr. Meador. I am somewhat on the fence personally. I suppose 1
should state, just to keep the record clear, that the courts task force,
which I chaired, formulated a set of recommendations for the im-
provement of plea bargaining, which were similar to those of the
American Bar Association in its "Criminal Justice Standards." How-
ever, the parent body of the courts task force, the National Advisory
Commission, took a position clearly against plea bargaining", advocat-
ing its total discontinuance and abolition within 5 years from now.
In the meantime, it said that the recommendations of the courts task
force for improving it were all good, and they should be foliowed but
simply as interim measures looking toward the ultimate demise in the
practice. The view was that it was so inherently fraught with evils and
unfairness and disadvantages to society, the only cure for it was to
abolish it completely.
I have never firmly enough made up my mind on that issue to take a
position myself. I see the arguments. I don't work intimatelv with
prosecution and defense work. I feel I am not well enough informed
to have a firm position on it. Certainly, I think from what I do know,
the process needs drastic improvement at the ver}^ least. I think the
various recommendations that have been made by the ABA and the
courts task force are all good.
Mr. NoLDE. Gentlemen, what is your opinion on the effect rule 50 (b)
has had in actual practicality in speeding up of the trial process? Has
that really done any good; have the courts really come up with plans
that are actually working to speed up the appellate process ?
Judge Bryan. Just what is 50 (b) ?
.^[i-. Xoi.de. Rule 50 (b) is a Federal i-ule whicli rertuires disti'ict
courts to come up with a plan within GO days to expedite the trial
court process.
Judge Bryan. I haven't seen any effectuation of it.
Mr. Meador. I don't have any information about that eitlior, enough
to be of anv help. T don't know what effect it luid. I lia\en't had
ocf msion to inquire into it.
Mr. NoLDE. Do you have an opinion on the speedy trial statutes
which are now being considered, which pose a mandatory HO-day pe-
1220
riod within which to bring a case to trial after arrest, subject to
dismissal ?
jSIr. Meador. Again, if I can cite the court report, that report takes
a position that 60 days should be the norm in felony cases from arrest
to commencement of trial. However, it goes on to say that it is simply
saying this is how the system ought to function, it ought to be
so organized and so staffed that this is what happens generally. It ex-
pressly stops short of saying anything about the sanction if it doesn't
liappen. The report does not recommend there be a dismissal.
On that issue, again, it is higlily controversial. There are arguments
l)oth ways. I do not feel well informed enough about day-to-day crimi-
nal trial work to have a firm view myself.
Mr. NoLDE. Judge Bryan.
Judge Bryan. I don't think you can lay down any fixed rule. I
think if the judge has control of his docket as he should have, that he
is the one who should and can control it.
Mr. NoLDE. Our problem is they haven't.
Judge Bryax. I don't think legislation is going to make them do it
without loss to the public interest.
Mr. NoLDE. Well, of course, implicit in that is the necessity of ad-
ditional resources being provided for funding for more prosecutors,
more judges, more court facilities, moi-e court resources to prevent
injury to the public interest where defendants are turned loose.
Juclge Bryan. If you answer it that way, it seems to me it might
work.
Mr. NoLDE. That is an important caveat.
Judge Bryan. Yes. But I think judges have got to show a little
backbone on this situation.
]Mr. NoLPE. Judge Bryan, your proposal, I take it, although on its
face is applicable to civil as well as criminal cases, would seem to be
designed primarily to speed up the criminal cases on appeal.
Judge Bryan. Yes. That is what I was more concerned with, be-
cause that is what the public looks to. They don't look to an important
ciAnl case, no matter how interesting the constitutional point is, or
anything of that sort.
Mr. NoLDE. What constitutional questions might have already been
raised or could be raised in connection with your proposal?
Judge Bryan. In connection v.-ith this? I think it is not vulnerable
to constitutional attack. It is a matter of procedure just so that nobody
is prejudiced by it. If prejudice is shown, there is room for expansion
of the rule. But if a man knows he has got 80 days in which to note
his apppal, he is not going to note it until the 29th.
Mr. XoLDE. night.
Professor Meador, could vou give an opinion on the constitutionality
of Judge Bryan's proposal ?
Mr. Meador. I see no constitutional difficulty at all. It seems to me
a convicted defendant in a criminal case should have, and perhaps
under the Constitution has, a right to present his appeal to another
forum. That embraces a right to communicate in some fashion to the
forum, to the reviewing forum, the reasons why he says the convic-
tion should not stand. A"\^iether that be done orally or in writing, I
do not see to be of constitutional dimension.
1221
Also, I do not see a constitutional dimension to the pro1)lem of liow
much of a transcript you have, or what kind of papers you have, so long
as there is a channel of communication to the appellate court about
what went on below, and what the appellant's arguments are, so the
reviewing court can meaningfully pass on them. If that is satisfied,
then I don't see a constitutional problem. I think there is a very wide
leeway and flexibility, in structure and procedures, without violating
the Constitution.
Mr. NoLDE. Do you feel this would fully comply with the require-
ment of due process of law I
Mr. Meador. Yes, sir.
Judge Bkyax, As I recall, there was no appeal in England in the
criminal case until 1891.
Mr. Meador. And not in the Federal court in this countrv until
about the same time. In England, it was 1908.
Judge Bryan. I don't think the right to an appeal is a constitutional
right.
Mr. Meador. Even if it is, my view is it is satisfied so long as you
allow the man a means of communicating what he complains of, and
communicating enough information about what went on below, so the
court can pass on his contentions.
Mr. Winn. Some of us have been quite disturbed in the discussion
about the inconsistencies of sentencing from even one courtroom next
door to the other one, from New York or Washington. D.C., to Cali-
fornia. I wonder if you would care to discuss that just briefly and
give us your opinions on it. What can we do and what can be done
to try to get more consistency in our sentencing ?
Judge Bryan. I think there have been discussions with wliich you
are more familiar tlian I, to have a commission after a conviction, and
having the extent of the punishment determined by the commission.
I am not thoroughly in accord with that. I think the local judge is
really in the better position than anyone to see what the quantum of
the sentence should be, what is fair.
There are circumstances that would indicate a sentence is cruel and
those same circumstances would say the man has gotten no more than
he deserved. But all of those are factors with which the trial judge is
familiar, and it doesn't carry through in the printed record to who-
ever is going to reexamine it.
You know very well how varied the verbal word is from the written
word. You ask a witness a question and he will say, "Xo." with some
sort of a nuance and then yon take another witness and he will say
{positively, "Xo."" That nuance doesn't show on the record at all.
Xow. I think the same is true in deciding what is an appropriate
])unishment. Another way. of course, would be to let the sentences be
reviewable, and that is the closest remedy that I can see to it.
Mr. Wtnn. How would you do that? What system?
Judge Bryan. It would come upon appeal. As it is now. if the dis-
trict court judge gives a sentence within the limits that Congress has
fixed for it. there can be no appeal from that. The answer is: Now
he has a right to give that sentence : and we cannot interfere with it. I
think Confirress, your body, has given a good deal of study to whether
there should be that review.
Mr. Winn. That just drags it on?
1222
Judge Bryan. That just drags it on.
Mr. Winn. The procedure ought to go further, which is what you
are trying to get at, and most of us agree.
Judge Bryan. Some years ago you passed an act which allowed a
judge to pass — and is still on the books — the maximum sentence and
then he refers it to the appropriate body, the parole board.
They will come back with a recommendation after study. He does
not have to accept that. Ordinarilj^ he will accept it, or he can say if
it is a 5-year sentence and they recommend 3 years, he can say, well, I
will sentence him to 5 years, but suspend the balance of the 2 years.
It is something I think that primarily should be left to the trial judge.
He sees the man and he sees the persons who have testified against
him, and he has got cozier knowledge of it than anybody else has.
Mr. Winn. Do you think the human element then of the judge to
the defendant is extremely important ?
Judge Bryan. Very important. I think it is really vital.
Mr. Winn. Do you think there is anything to the theory that a
certain percentage — it would probably be very small — of criminals
go to certain areas of the country to commit their crimes, or to commit
further crimes, because the prosecutors are lenient, judges are lenient,
the court system is weak, or there is not enough room in the institu-
tions to put them in jail? Do you think this theory has any credence ?
Judge Bryan. Yes, I do. I think, to put it around the other way,
they stay out of certain States because they know there that their
punishment will be more severe.
Mr. Winn. Their communications system is pretty darn good, isn't
it?
Judge Bryan. Yes.
Mr. Winn. Particularly among the real pros. They have been in
and out of institutions and they talk about, "Don't go to this area,
don't go to that area, because that judge is tough, or the prosecutor is
a tough one."
Judge Bryan. It is undoubtedly true that they know where and at
what stateline to stop.
Mr. Winn. How would you say that Washington, D.C., fits into
that picture?
Judge Bryan. I don't know, really.
Mr. Winn. I am not trying to put you on the spot.
Judge Bryan. The general reputation of Virginia is if you get over
there, you are going to catch it.
Mr. Winn. In Virginia ?
Judge Bryan. Yes, I think they beware of Virginia when they can.
Mr. Winn. Washington, D.C. has been referred to by some elements
in the crime field as the melting pot of all of the troublemakers in the
country. When they get in trouble in their home area they go to the
District of Columbia because there are so many of them there, they
can't handle the court caseload, their institutions are full, and so you
get a pretty liberal treatment.
Judge Bryan. That could get around very quickly.
I remember as a district judge, I had the Eastern Shore of Virginia,
which is the peninsula coming down, and we would have criminals
coming down from New York City that were used to committing far
i
1223
greater crimes than the country people on the Eastern Shore of Vir-
ginia were used to. With a few pretty severe punishments, that ceased.
So I believe that is a prevention. On the other hand, you don't want
to be so cruel that your desire to supress a crime or to prevent a crime
overreaches justice in the case.
Mr. WixN. I suppose this would be true in some cases where the
])rosecutors and the courts and the judges sort of set themselves up
as if we are enough, we are really tough, we won't get the flow into
our area if it is near a big city.
Judge Bryan. Yes. A lot of them have the idea very, very severe
sentences are deterrents.
Mr. "Wixx. What is your feeling on that ?
Judge Bryan. I think that varies. I don't think you can deter a
homicide arising from domestic difficulties through severe sentences.
The fear isn't there. I think you can deter bank robberies and things
of that sort. But when it comes to personal considerations, it just
doesn't count.
I remember a case that I prosecuted years ago. I don't know if you
are familiar with Alexandria or not, but in the middle of the town was
the George Mason Hotel and this husbaiid came up and shot his wife
right through the head, standing in the lobby of the hotel. Well, right
on its face it looked as if it was certainly a cold blooded, premeditated,
first-degree murder case. But when the evidence came out, it showed
there had been a great deal of bickering between the husband and the
wife, the in-laws had joined in, and they had formed sides. So that
no amount of punishment there would deter such a crime.
Mr. Winn. Then your philosophy would be, again as you stated in
your prepared remarks, swifter sentences and not particularly more
severe sentences ?
Judge Bryan. Yes. That is a tremendous factor in deterring. It is
the certainty of punishment that deters.
Mr. Winn. Another one of our concerns is the bail system, which
seems to liave about as many arms as an octopus and seems to be
involved in many cases under the table as much as on the table. I
wonder, in the District of Columbia they have a bail agency. In some
places the bail firms are right next to the courthouse, right across what-
ever the location might be, and those people have been accused of polit-
ical payofi's. ~\^liat can we do to clean that up? I come from Kansas
City, which doesn't have the greatest reputation, certainly in the
past, for clean politics in the Kansas City area. But what can we do to
have a more efficient and cleaner operation, more honest ?
Judge Bryan. Yes; that is a difficult question. Now, that is the
professional bondsman.
Mr. Winn. Yes. Bondsman.
Judge Bryan. It isn't so here, but there are places where a profes-
sional bondsman is just a godsend.
If you were driving through some very strange State and had an
automobile accident and the police charged you with manslaughter,
you have either got to go to jail or give bond. And if there wasn't a
professional bondsman there you would go to jail.
In large cities, I just don't Icnow how it could be handled, except if
you required proof by the bondsman of solvency and not just simple
1224
proof, but sound proof of it, you would probably be getting into the
bonding business a better class of person.
Mr. Winn. That is pretty hard to do because a lot of the bonds-
men in some cities are front men in some cases for the syndicate.
Judge Bryx^n. "Wlio can prove their solvency. If he comes up to give
bond, he is examined and he qualifies.
:Mr. Winn. That is right.
Judge Bryan. You have a big problem there. I wish I would give
you some helpful answer that you don't already know of yourself.
^Ir. Winn. I don't know. I am just concerned about it because I
have seen some examples in the past from other cities — where the
bondsmen have been accused and charged and indicted for payoffs
with the night clerk or whoever is involved, the different people that
might be involved, and I think the public, maybe the more sophisti-
cated public that probably can afford to put up their own bond, is well
aware there is sort of a stinking mess in the bail system in this
country.
Maybe it is not as bad as the press would lead us to believe. I don't
know.
Judge Bryan. Xo. but the public has that idea, undoubtedly. It
is sort of a low-class business.
Mr. Winn. Thank you veiy much. Judge. I am sorry I missed your
earlier testimony, but I will look forward with interest to reading
your prepared remarks.
Judge Bryan. I feel flattered to be invited to appear here.
Mr. NoLX>E. I have one more question. Was there a study by the
Federal Judicial Center of the constitutionality of your proposal ?
Judge Bryan. No.
Mr. NoLDE. Was an informal review made of your proposal ?
Judge Bryan. Xo. Actually, I am trying to excuse my lack of per-
suasiveness. It was quite a large group that were listening to different
subjects and nobody really felt or had the initiative to go into question-
ing of the subject. I don't suppose I had more than two or three
questions.
There were just too many for concentration.
Xow, the administrative office has recently circulated these sugges-
tions among the executives of the 11 circuits. I don't know what re-
sponse they have gotten on that. They are particularly interested in
the saving of funds that would result from omitting these transcripts.
Mr. XoLDE. As far as attorneys representing defendants both at
the trial and appellate level, of course, it is obviously better to have
the same attorney. Would you make it mandatory in the general run
of the cases to have the attorney at the appellate level be the same one
as the trial attorney ?
Judge Bryan. Yes. I think that is a fair imposition upon the trial
attorney, that he expect to cany the case through. The change is only
permitted when his client raises — and they do it all of the time — dis-
satisfaction in the way he is being represented. Xow. I don't think that
a judge ought to take that right on the face of it, that he has been in-
efficient, because it is quite a slur on the lawyer if that representation
should be accepted. That is the reason so many lawyers don't like to
take those assignments, because they know they are going to be criti-
cized by their own clients and they don't care to be subjected to that.
1225
So if the judg-e is a little stiii' oji loleasiiig an attorney — just like he
would be in a civil case, wouldn't allow it in the middle of a civil case,
the attorney to withdraw, because it might cause a mistrial in the
case — but I think he could exercise that same ])ower by looking into this
question of inefficiency and if he comes to the conclusion it is unfair
accusation, he can refuse to make the change.
Mr. NoTJDE. Thank you, Judge Brj^an and Professor Meador.
"We have been honored to have you today and we are delighted to
hear of your innovative proposals.
[The prepared statements of Professor Meador and Judge Brj-an
follow :]
uxiversitt of vibginia,
School of Law,
Charlottesville, Va., May 2, 1973.
Memorandum
To : Select Committee on Crime, House of Representatives, Congress of the
United States.
From : Daniel J. Meador, Professor of I-aw, University of Virginia.
The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals is
laiblishiiig a series of reports spanning all segments of the criminal justice sys-
tem. Collectively these reports are designed to provide a strategy for the reduction
of crime in the United States over the next ten years. The Report on Courts is one
of this series ; it was prepared by a Courts Task Force, of which I served as
chairman. While not comprehensive, this report is addressed to the more pressing
problems of delay, inefficiency, and unfairness which currently afflict the judicial
process in criminal cases. The report contains many standards and recommenda-
tions for improving the courts' performance. Many of these, if implemented,
would substantially accelerate a final determination of guilt or innocence ; others
would upgrade the quality of justice, even though tliey might have no direct im-
pact on efficiency.
This Select Committee should review carefully the Report on Courts, as it con-
tains a rich array of ideas for new procedures, experimental programs, and re-
search. The report is available, as of this date, in galley proof. The published
volume will be available in the near future.
The following are set out as an illustrative sample of proposals in the Report
on Courts which have a direct bearing on the expedition of criminal cases and
which merit consideration by this Committee :
1. Eliminate the requirement of grand jury indictment in felony cases. (Stand-
ard 4.4)
2. Create a new offense of failure to appear, for cases of "bail jumping," with
a penalty the same as the penalty for the offense with which the defendant was
originally charged. (Standard 4.7)
3. Establish a system of priority scheduling in trial courts so that certain cases
can be moved to conclusion with minimum delay. ( Standard 4.11 )
4. Restrict voir dire examination of prospective jurors to the trial judge.
(Standard 4.13)
r». Experiment more widely with the video taping of trials, with edited video
tapes .shown to juries. ( Recommendation 4.2)
6. Increase utilization of computers in court administration and operations,
including computerized production of transcripts for use on appeal. (Standard
11.1)
7. Experiment more widely with automated legal research, with remote ter-
n^na's in judges' chambers, prosecutors' offices, and public defenders' offices.
(Standard 11.2)
8. Experiment with a unified review proceeding which would consolidate into
a single review all of tbe review which currently takes place on new trial mo-
tions, direct appeals, and post conviction proceedings. (Standards 6.1, G.2, 6.3,
6.4)
The idea of a unified review proceeding is also discussed in a recently published
book. Criminal Appeals: Engli.sh Practices and American Reforms (University
I'ress of Virginia, 1973). This book is based on a study of criminal appeals in
this country and in England which I did under a grant from the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration. The proposed unified review proceeding was suggested
1226
by the English practice, but it is not an exact copy. The basic idea is to have a
probing review of the case, not confined to the "record." A professional staff of
lawyers would be provided the appellate court to assist the judges in ferreting
out all defects, whether raised by the lawyers or not, so as to settle finally the
validity of the conviction.
If the unified review procedure should prove successful, the Report on Courts
recommends that collateral review, both state and federal, be contracted, so as
to increase the finality of convictions. (Standards 6.5, G.6, 6.7, 6.8)
Other ideas for expediting judicial handling of criminal cases are suggested in
Criminal Appeals : English Practices and American Reforms. For example, the
trial and appellate processes might be rendered shorter, fairer, and more profes-
sional by adopting the English custom of a trial bar which rotates interchange-
ably in prosecution and defense work. (See pages 114-116). This could be done
experimentally in this country in a given city or county, where there is a steady
volume of cases, by establishing an office of Criminal Justice Atto^-neys. Each
lawyer in the office would represent the prosecution for a while — three or four
months — then he would represent the defense (in indigent cases) for a similar
period. Such a continual rotation might develop a better atmosphere of detached
professionalism and prevent ideological or emotional attachments to a "side" or
a "cause." In turn, this would make for expedition.
The use of a central staff of lawyers in appellate courts is another idea gaining
momentum in this country. A staff is a key feature of English criminal appeals
(See pages 28-43). More experience is needed in American courts to determine
to what extent a staff can increase an appellate court's productivity and expedite
the cases, v/ithout impinging on the judicial function. The National Center for
State Courts is currently conducting an Appellate Justice Project designed to
gauge these and other aspects of an appellate staff. Under this project, staff
lawyers are working experimentally in appellate courts in Nebraska, Illinois, New
Jersey, and Virginia. Reports on these experiences will be submitted in late 1973.
Experimental and pilot projects are needed in the courts in order to test new
ideas. Judges and lawyers tend to be reluctant to adopt new procedures until they
can see that they work. At the same time judges and lawyers are reluctant to ex-
periment. Tims reform efforts are stymied. Perhaps the most promising way to
promote experimentation in the courts is through funding provided for that pur-
pose. The availability of money for a court may prompt the court to try a novel
proposal which it wouHl not otherwise consider. This may be the best practical
way to bring about badly needed reforms in the judicial process.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Albert V. Bryan, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals
Fourth Circuit, Alexandria, Va.
rule amendments to speed the appeal process by shortening the interval
between the notice of appeal and the argument
My objective is to lessen sharply the lapse of available time under the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure between the notice of appeal and the docketing
of the case in the appeals court. Presently, this period permissibly amounts to
approximately a minim.um of 4^/^ months.
I. I think it is reasonably practicable to reduce it to 60 days. Itemized, the
steps and days now consumed in the intervening period are these :
(a) 10 days for filing notice of appeal by an individual or corporation, and .30
days for an appeal by the Governm.ent, but in either case it may he extend>ed* for
an additional 30 days for excusable neglect.
(b) 40 days for the transmission of the record from the trial to the appellate
court — this may be enlarged to 90 days.
(c) 40 days from the transmission of the record is given the appellant for
filing the opening brief.
(d) 30 days for filing of the appellee's brief, not to commence until after
receipt of the appellant's brief.
(e) 14 days for the appellant to file a reply brief.
Total — 1.34 days or 4% months, or 154 days for the Government, without
extension.
The most serious delay occurs in the preparation of the transcript of the trial
proceedings for inclusion in the record. Seldom is the transcript readiable in 40
days. Blame therefor is not attributable to the trial court, the attorneys or the
U
1227
reporter, but rather to the reporter's inability to write up the transcript
promptly, because of the heavy burden carried by each reporter and because the
trial judge has only one such employee. The reporter is required to attend ses-
sions of the court daily and, consequently, must take care of the transcribing
only in spare time. The English courts, reportedly, have the same difficulty in
expediting appeals.
Of overriding importance in the amendments now recommended is the defer-
ment of the call for a transcript until there appears to be a need for it. Judge
Parker, a prominent jurist lately of the Fourth Circuit, said that a transcript
was of little use for no one looks at it. This is the experience of many appeals
judges. Forty days or more would be saved in the appeal process if the tran-
script were not required.
If the case were argued without the transcript, nothing would be lost. Even
should the argument develop a necessity for it, which would be infrequent, then
the transcript, or so much of it as appeared needed, could be obtained after argu-
ment. Only in two situations, to be explained in a moment, has it been suggested
that the lawyers could possibly be deprived of any essential to the appeal.
The sole situations just mentioned as militating against this proposal are two :
(1) when the point on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence and (2) when
there is a change of counsel between the trial and the appellate level.
There is an immediate and practical answer to both of these apprehensions.
If the review goes to the adequacy of the evidence, every practitioner knows that
this does not refer to the whole of the testimony or exhibits. Always there are
only two, three or special points of vulnerability imputed to the evidence. These
would appear in the exceptions to the requests to charge, or to the jury charge
itself, or in the requested findings and conclusions or in those actually granted in
a non-jury case, or in the judge's opinion when one is rendered. The bases of the
alleged infirmity are seldom debatable ; the question is not so much the content
of the evidence, but rather its admissibility, its relevance and its purpose.
With respect to the second objection — the change of counsel — the answer is
that the release of trial counsel should be more sparingly accorded. Moreover,
substitute counsel may obtain a summary of the case from the indictment or the
complaint and answer, from the charge to the jury, or from the judge's state-
ment of findings and conclusions, or his opinion. Additionally, opposing counsel
will generally stipulate the background and context of the alleged failure in the
evidence. At all events, no lasting prejudice could result because the court ulti-
mately could require the needed transcript, full or partial.
In summary, the point is that the rules should not demand a transcript of the
evidence prior to the argument of the case.
II. The proposed rules require the appellant to list, immediately following the
notice of appeal, the issues on the appeal, just as is now required of the appel-
lant's brief by Rule 28(a) (2), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. With this
outline, plus the indictment, or the complaint and answer, any depositions and
exhibits on file, and the charge of the court or its statement of fact findings and
law conclusions, the appeals court will be fully apprised of all claims and de-
fenses. The issues will be shaped and laid out by the statement of them. In these
circumstances rarely would recourse to the transcript of the evidence be essential.
Certainly not before the argument.
III. Another step in expedition could be achieved by reducing the time for
filing briefs. Actually, briefs might be entirely dispensed with. If the case is
argued shortly after the trial's termination, the lawyers are then in a more
advantageous position to argue than at any time — certainly more so than after
the expiration of several months. They would have the evidence at their finger-
tips, having just argued motions to set aside the verdict or modify the findings,
etc., when there are no briefs. Counsel are then fired with their cause and will
never again be so well prepared for the appeal presentation. The appeals court
would suffer no deprivation ; it would have the benefit of all the papers which
were before the lawyers and the oral argument, with the tape recording of it for
later refreshment. As it is now, the presentation is duplicated, first in laborious
briefs and then in oral argument.
If briefs are not wholly omitted, simultaneous briefs should be seriously con-
sidered. The parties would file their respective opening briefs at the same time
and each side would file a reply brief. It is suggested that 30 days be allowed
for the first briefs and 10 days for the reply briefs. As briefs need not be printed,
there would be no necessity for greater time for their preparation. Such a pro-
cedure would cut off as much as 40 days from the appeal interval.
1228
CONCLUSION
The suggestions incorporated in the amendments now offered, including the
use of simultaneous briefs, would effect a curtailment of appeal time from 134
to 59 days. The time schedule would be as follows :
(a) 7 days for filing notice of appeal.
(b) 7 days thereafter for filing the statement of the issues.
(c) 5 days for the judge to file the jury charge or his findings and conclusions.
( d ) 30 days for simultaneous briefs.
(e) 10 days for reply briefs.
Total— 59 days.
Proposed Amendments to Rules 10, 11 and 12 of the Fourth Circuit
AS Revised and Submitted to Seminar in Washington, D.C, on Febru-
ary 2G, 1970, at the Federal Judicial Center
RULE no. 10. compilation AND TRANSMISSION OF THE RECORD
I. Appellant shall, within 7 days after the filing of a notice of appeal, file with
the Clerk of the District Court a statement of the issues presented for review,
such as he is required to include in his brief by Rule 28(a) (2) of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure. It shall consist of a condensed list of the points
to be made against the order from which the appeal is taken, but shall not include
argument of the point. A single page of legal cap size typed in double space
should suffice. An excusable omission from the list will not preclude reliance
upon the point.
II. Each District Judge, for the expedition of appeals, is requested to file with
the Clerk within 7 days from the time the judge is advised that a notice of ap-
peal has been filed, the following papers :
A copy of his charge in a jury case, or his findings of fact and conclusions of
law in a non-jury case.
III. Except in reviews of decision of the Tax Court and in reviews or enforce-
ment of Agency orders, the record and docketing of the appeal, unless otherwise
ordered by the court, shall be at the times and in the manner as follows :
(a) No transcript of the stenographic report or other means used in record-
ing the proceedings at trial, or agreed statement as permitted by Rule 10(d) of
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, shall be required of the parties before
the appeal is docketed, or be required thereafter, unless before or after argument
of the appeal, the court shall require a transcript, or any party may elect to
supply a transcript or the parties may desire to supply an agreed statement, pro-
vided, however, that in any event the court may shorten the time for filing of
a transcript or the agreed statement, and may hear the appeal argument, but may
defer decision, pending receipt of a requested transcript or agreed statement.
Rules 11(d) and 11(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
(b) The Clerk of the District Court, immediately upon receipt of the notice
of appeal, shall inform the District Judge thereof, and without awaiting the filing
of the transcript or agreed statement, the Clerk shall forward to the Clerk of
the Court of Appeals the following items :
(1) A photostatic or other immediately available copy of the docket entries.
(2) All of the papers and exhibits filed or lodged in the action in the District
Court, without copying them.
(3) Four copies of the appellant's statement of the issues, and four copies in
a jury case of the charge of the Court, and in a case tried without a jury of the
Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and at the same time the Clerk
of the District Court shall forward copies of these papers to counsel of record.
(4) A transcript of the proceedings, or agreed statement under Rule 10(d),
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, if either has by then been received by the
Clerk of the District Court.
1229
RULE 11. BRIEl-'S
<a) Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the parties may agree to argue
t\n^ appt'al without briefs or on simultaneous briefs; or any party may waive the
right to file a brief. In the absence of any such exception, briefs shall be pre-
pared and filed in the form and within the time prescribed by the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure.
(b) Briefs need not be permitted. Typographic, typewritten or other good
copies from reproduction machines will be accepted, if they are clear.
(c) A copy of this Rule 11 shall be sent by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals
to counsel as soon as he receives the papers enumerated in Rule 10, Ill(b) (.3).
RULE 12. APPENDIX TO BRIEFS
Unless the court upon motion or sua sponte shall dispense with an apitendix in
a particular case as permitted by FRAP 30(f) :
(a) Appendices to the briefs shall be prepared and filed in the form and within
the times prescribed by FRAP 30if) but unless directed by the court or desired
by the party, no part of the testimony shall be included.
' (b) If there is a disagreement between the parties as to the testimony, the
court may receive, or order produced, after the argument a transcript of the
testimony to settle or verify the contentions.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m.. the committee adjourned, to reconvene
at 10 a.m., on Tuesday, May 8, 1973, in room 2261, Rayburn House
Office Building.]
STREET CRLME IN AMERICA
(Prosecution and Court Innovations)
TUESDAY, I/LA.Y 8, 1973
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on Crime,
Washington^ D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 2261,
Raybum House Office Building, Hon. Claude Pepper (chairman)
presiding.
Present : Representatives Pepper, Rangel, and Winn.
Also present: Chris Nolde, chief counsel; Bob Trainor, assistant
counsel; Thomas O'Halloran, assistant counsel; and Leroy Bedell,
hearings officer.
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
We are very pleased to have sit with us this morning one of the
distinguished Members of the House of Representatives, highly re-
spected by all of the Members on both sides of the aisle, one who has
lionored us by sitting with us this morning to hear some of the wit-
nesses. We hope he can stay through the whole session.
I would like to call upon my distinguished colleague and friend,
Mr. Mitchell, if he will introduce our first witness this morning.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAEEEN J. MITCHELL, A U.S. EEPEESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGEESS FEOM THE STATE OF MAEYLAND
Mr. IMiTCHELL. Thank you very much.
I am delighted for this opportunity to be here with you. Unfor-
tunately, I will not be able to stay for the entire session this morning.
I have a 10:30 appointment. I am very much concerned about the
Senate hearings on the confirmation of the new Secretary of the Army.
Before introducing the witnesses, I want to take this opportunity to
pay a tribute to the chairman of this committee. I think far too often
we fail to recognize men who have dedicated themselves to the areas of
human rights and human interests. I know that this distinguished
chairman, as both a Senator and a Member of the House, has dedicated
his life to the whole principle of human equality and to the securing
of the best that a society can offer to human beings.
Let me just take this opportunity to thank you personally and pub-
licly for the magnificent record you have compiled.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much, Mr. Mitchell. I appreciate
your remarks.
(1231)
P5-15S— 7:
1232
Mr. Mitchell. It is my very distinct honor to introduce two gentle-
men, and I will introduce them both at the same time Ijecause I have
to leave. These two gentlemen from Baltimore represent, I think, the
finest and the best in the legal judicial tradition of this country.
I am referring to Mr. Charles Moylan, a very distinguished jurist
from the city of Baltimore. It is almost unnecessary to speak about his
professional capacity, because he has a national reputation.
"VVliat I would like to do in introducing him is to point out the
human quality that he had when he was with the State's attorney's
office and returns as a judge on the bench ; the quality that enabled him
to transcend racial and economic lines so he moved freely and with
confidence throughout our Baltimore communities. At a time when
there is great racial polarization, I would like to point to the fact that
Charles Moylan has the respect of the black community because he has
integrity, and honesty, and he is a very decent, wonderful human
being. I am delighted to present him to this committee.
The second gentleman, a longtime friend and outstanding man in
the citv of Baltimore, is our State's attornev, Mr. Milton Allen. As you
well know, a few years ago, in a historic election in Baltimore City,
the city, the citizens of the city, elected the first black State's attorney
to head a large urban office. That man elected was Milton B. Allen.
I campaigned with him. supported him fully, and believed in all of
the conunitments that he made when he was running for office. I am
delighted to reporit that he has lived up to those commitments.
Mr. Allen has been an aggressive advocate. Mr. Allen has been really
a tower of strength in the judicial system in the city of Baltimore and
the State of Maryland. Like Mr. Moylan, he has won the widespread
respect of the entire Baltimore community. The only thing that I can
say in closing, in presenting Mr. Milton Allen to this committee, is
that he, too, represents the quintessence of excellence that we seek to
find in the judicial system of our country.
With those brief introductory- remarks, Mr. Chairman, I am de-
lighted to present these two witnesses to you.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mitchell, we appreciate your introduction of these two distin-
guished gentlemen.
As you and I know, these hearings are to exhibit to the country and
to the Congress the most innovative thinking, the most innovative
procedures and programs to be found anywhere in the country in cer-
tain critical areas having to do with the administration of our criminal
justice system. We started with the police and we had 13 outstanding
police departments of the country to come here and tell us about the
imaginative and innovative programs which they have employed in
curbing crime.
Then came the innovative programs and practitioners, and person-
alities in the field of juvenile crime and in the field of correctional insti-
tutions. One of the sad aspects of the whole program that we have in
this country for the administration of justice is the correctional system.
So we had people who were especially knowledgeal)le in advanced
thinking in the area of juvenile crimes and delinquency, and correc-
tional or penal institutions.
Then, in the last phase, we are having selected individuals that we
consider outstanding in the country, who have done something imagi-
1233
native, creative, and constructive in the field and in the functioninc: of
}H()secutinir atorneys, and in courts. We have had outstanding courts
officials and prosecuting attorneys. We have chosen Mr. Allen and
Judge Moylan because, in their respective fields, as I said to my dis-
tinguished friend, ]Mr. Mitchell, we thought they have been outstand-
ing and can give an example to the Congress and the country on how
we can further curb crime by imaginative and constructive programs
such as they have been oil'ering.
We are very pleased to have them.
Thank you for being with us, Mr. Mitchell, and stay as long as you
can.
Mr. Counsel, will you call the first witness.
Mr. Allen and Mr. ^Moylan, would you please come forward, and
your colleagues.
STATEMENTS OF MILTON B. ALLEN, STATE'S ATTORNEY FOR THE
CITY OF BALTIMORE, STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, BALTIMORE.
MD.; ACCOMPANIED BY HOWARD B. GERSH, CHIEF, VIOLENT
CRIMES LIAISON UNIT: AND HON. CHARLES E. MOYLAN, JR.,
ASSOCIATE JUDGE, STATE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS, BALTI-
MORE, MD.
Mr. xVllex. Thank you, ]Mr. Pepper.
This is Mr. Gersh from my office. He is the man in charge of one of
the innovative programs we have in my office You may wish to ask him
some questions about how he operates the section.
I would like to say first that I am grateful to find that this com-
mittee is considering all aspects of the criminal law picture in these
United States.
Chairman Pepper. First, let me thank you, Judge Moylan and iNlr.
Allen and Mr. Gersh, for being here with us this m.orning. We appre-
ciate your coming. We know we will profit from hearing you.
Mr. Allex. We appreciate the opportunity to speak to a committee
such as this, because I think all three of us are very interested in the
heightened activity in the criminal justice field. lam delighted the
committee is looking at it from all aspects because street crime simply
can't be considered in isolation; and we so often fall into that bad
pattern.
It is very similar to the people who think more policemen, more
jails, and harder judges will solve crime. Of course, it won't. Street
crime is intertwined inexplicably with so many phases of the criminal
law picture, including the fact our society apparently has lost the
ability to deal with the entire criminal law picture.
The prosecutor system, which is one of my pet beefs, with its ap-
parent inability to cope with crime because of its fascination with
part-time, youthful, inexperienced, underpaid i)rosecutors — part
time — is probably one of the largest contributing factors to the failure
to curb crime in this country.
The prison system, of course, which much of the time turns out a
more highly skilled criminal at the other end, is a contributing factor.
The basic unfairness of certain parts of our American system in which
1234
we have not really supplied the criminal statistics, and we find our-
selves unable to deal with the thinking criminal contributions.
The overly complicated criminal justice system in which we find
ourselves in a situation, after a series of Supreme Court decisions
which were forced out of the Supreme Court, in large part by over-
zealous policemen, unskilled prosecutors, and insensitive judges, sucli
as the Mirandas and Escobedos, and the Mapps and the Browns,
and so on, contribute a great deal.
The inability of our criminal justice system, the inability of our
States to cope with organized crime and white-collar crime, and con-
sumer fraud and ecological crime, is another contributing factor.
The lack of integrity at the top level of our Government con-
tributes a great deal. There are no simple solutions to it, except a
gross revision of the entire system. There are good ideas and good
plans and good systems. We have in Baltimore presently existing two
good plans that we think work.
The first one is one that we call liaison for violent crimes, which
was instituted, thought of, about July of last year, started around
September, and really became active around January, Funded through
LEAA, the first plan was to have six prosecutors, six highly skilled
prosecutors, to work around the clock with policemen in the serious
crimes. By being limited in numbers, we confined ourselves to homi-
cide and certain other serious crimes, rapes, and these have involved
robberies.
The idea being to get a prosecutor in at the very early stage so that
the prosecutorial problems that would arise later would be avoided.
These men make themselves available, although we only have four
instead of the six we should have had, make themselves available
around the clock ; they work as much as 30 hours a day with a rough
case, and they process the case from the very beginning with an eye
toward successful prosecution. We have become very statistic oriented
in this country and very often we are carried away by arrest statistics,
when the emphasis should be, it seems to me, on successful prosecution,
because in my view nothing damages the system more than an unsuc-
cessful prosecution.
Every time a defendant is arrested and, as he calls it, beats the sys-
tem, you have lost another notch, you lost more credibility, and you lost
more belief in the system.
Now, these men deal with the police, with confessions; they deal
with them on search-and-seizure warrants; they deal with them at
the grand jury level, taking witnesses before the grand jury. They
give immunity, they plan strategy, they generally supervise the case
from a prosecutorial angle.
They handle bail, they deal with lawyers, they get lawyers in the
case early, and by this specialized function they liave been able to sur-
mount a great many problems that haunt the system. They have been
able to shortcut some of the timewasting procedures : the preliminary
hearing procedure, the grand jury procedure, which usually adds a
month or two in there to the time. They have been able to get lawyers
at an early stage through cooperation with the public defender's office.
And getting lawyers, under the new requirements of the court, has
proven a problem in many States.
1235
We have seen cases where a man was able to avoid getting a lawyer
for 7 or 8 months, thus getting his case stale and difficult to try.
We have found this system works. The prosecutors like it, the police
like it, it is practical, it is fair, and it has a potential for building re-
spect for the law, order, and justice. It also has a dividend in that we
are able to get out of the system, at an early stage, innocent defendants,
])ersons who arc innocent who are arrested, rather than keeping them
in jail 7 or 8 months and then find we don't have a case.
1 can cite you some examples of how the system works and the good
it has done. For instance, very recently, we had a "Murder for Hire"
ling in Baltimore that had been highly successful in disposing of un-
desirable people for fees of $()(){> to $1,500. The police knew who these
[)eople were but they simply could never get enough to make an arrest.
My unit got with them and they developed a strategy and we got
to the contact man between the hirer and the killers. We took him be-
fore the grand jury, we got a lawyer, we cracked the case. We made an
a rrest and within 29 days we had a conviction.
That does law enforcement a lot of good.
In another case, a verv^ similar strategy worked.
Chairman Pepper, I am glad you had a speedy tiial like that. That
is what we ought to have all over the country.
Mr. Ai^LEN^We aim for 60 days. It is not easy to do, to get a trial in
00 days. But you can do it in this isolated unit because we have men
riglit on top of it at all times.
We had another situation that could not have developed but for this
unit. We used a unit in the grand jury and, as a result of the Avork. the
homicide unit was able to make a mass arrest. Valid research revealed
the following: Three escaped murderers, three murder cases, 60-some
guns that were in one house, the solution to an absolutely clueless
murder of a security guard, a double-contract murder in New York
tliat was connected with narcotics that we solved here in INIaryland.
And an extra dividend, a very complicated, very quiet, unknown,
substantial narcotics operation that is still being developed.
We used the same approach very recently in another case in which
a key witness in a fairly minor case had mysteriously disappeared a
few days after he testified before the grand juiy. Absolutely disap-
peared from the face of the earth. We used a very similar approach
and were able to resolve the case. We found out where the witness went
and who sent him there. In addition to that, we got an extra dividend
in that case in what has become known as Baltimore's Missing Heroin
case, something that puzzled and bothered us for some 5 or 6 months.
We think we have an answer.
There have been many cases of this nature that we have been able
to develop and make cases where there was no case, by virtue of the
close cooperation between the prosecutor and the police. Oddly — odd
to me because I came, I was originally a defense lawj^er. Judge Moylan
and I fought many a battle when I was on the defense side, and I was
really surprised to learn that Mr. Gersh's operation had attracted so
much attention nationwide.
He has received letters from all over the country about the system.
1 think he is going to write something for the "Notre Dame Lawyer"
about it.
1236
I thought this was the way it was done all along. But apparently
the policemen and the prosecutors work separately. The police do their
part and 4 or 5 months later the prosecutor does his and they may not
work together. They may not be on the same wavelength.
We have another unit called Xareotics Strike Force that operates
on the same principle. I am reasonably sure it is the only State nar-
cotics strike force that has had any real success. I think they started
one in Michigan about the same time, but ours has had, I think, a
marked degree of success. This works with a larger force. We have
seven prosecutors and seven policemen. These people, we have a "Hot
Line," we advise police of Avarrants, we gather intelligence, we co-
operate with laAv enforcement in other parts of the country, and we
operate legal phone taps.
There have been inquiries about that unit. We had a group from
Indiana just 2 weeks ago to go over our system. They want to adopt
something similar in Indiana. This groaiD has been successful not only
in Baltimore but in the information they developed that goes out all
over the country. Much to our surprise, about 6 months ago, we —
through something we developed in Baltimore — were able to crack a
coke case smuggling operation in California, of all places.
As a result of that, we got the largest haul of cocaine they ever got
in California. These, of course, are specialized units. I suppose thei'e
are six men in this unit, seven men in Peter Ward's unit, who aie able
to accomplish these things by bearing down on the problem. But I
think, to have good ])rosecution. you must have this type of operation
at all levels of police-prosecutorial relations.
The law is much too complicated at this point to ever go back to
the old system. We must have prosecutors at the start and right on
through, which means it is going to cost money. And it means tlie
Federal Government must take an interest in prosecution over the
country. We still ha\'e more part-time prosecutors than full-time
prosecutors. We still have gross undei-payment in the field. I don't
know of five offices in this country wheie you have good pay scales.
We still cannot compete with the private bar.
To give an illustration, in mj^ city, the public defender's office, which
just started last year, start their salaries at $5,000 higher than I do.
I start at $10,000, they start at $15,000. So I can't compete. I can't
begin to compete.
Xow. the cities, of course, don't have mone}- to professionalize prose-
cutors' offices. But at this stage of development of our law, when the
prosecutor's office is really the key to successful law enforcement — I
regard it as the key — and for very little money and by settinsf mini-
mum standards from the Federal level, you could professionalize the
prosecutors' offices all over the country in 10 years.
Chairman Pepper. Are you getting any LEA A money?
Mr. AiJ.EX. Yes, sir. Almost half of my staff is financed through
LEAA. The liaison program is LEAA. the narcotics unit is LEAA.
Judge Moylan, before he left, started the district court syste:n. Be-
lieve it or not, we were trying 35,000 cases a year in district courts
without a prosecutor. How they did it. I don't know. I never will find
out. But Judge Moylan made one of the initial grants when he was
prosecutor, and we got prosecutoi^ in the districts.
1237
He started another program which I am carrvinor on, a pretrial
])ro£rT-am, designed to get prosecutors associated Avith the case early.
That is still in existence and it has l)een revised to get them into
rhe case prior to indictment, which we think is the next best thing to
have, for them to have an active charge in the case.
I am hopeful that this committee — I don't know what your aims
might be — but I am hopeful it doesn't end up in more laws and stiflfer
sentences which don't solve anything. I am hopeful they come up with
minimum standards for court systems. We have a good court system
in Maryland. We have a three-tier s^'stem that is fairly new.
Chairman PtrrER, Excuse me, Mr. Allen.
T draw the inference from what you just said that you don't think
that stiffer sentences, longer sentences, are necessarily the answer to
the problem.
Mr. Allen. Absolutely not.
Chairman Pepper. What do you think is a more effective apnproach ?
Mr. Allen. I really think we have to have an entire revision with
Federal guidelines of the entire justice system, including the courts.
]\Iaryland has a good court system but there are many States that
don't. We still have magistrates and justices of the peace all over the
country. You need three-tier systems.
I think Maryland is extraordinarily good. We fortunately have two
or three very good administrative judges who are really going after
this thing.
You must have changes m your prosecutor system. Ihe part-tnne
prosecutor is passe. He no longer can serve this complicated justice
pvstem. AVhatever is needed to bring the prosecutors' offices all over
the country up to par must be done if we are going to have good law
enforcement.
You simply cannot deal with the modern complicated case with a
prosecutor 2 years out of law school.
Chaiiman Pepper. Mr. Allen, I inferred from what you said that
the relative ceitainty. or a greater certainty, of appreliension and a
greater certainty of getting some kind of a .sentence that will put you
in prison is probably more of a deterrent than the lengthy and long-
term sentences.
Mr. Allen. Absolutely.
The cei-tainty of punishment and the certainty of proper and fair
punishment — proper and fair results, I think — is the greatest^ deter-
rent we can have. But our system is not able to deliver that. We can't
deliver it because, No. 1, we have good police forces in many cities
and many States, but not nationwide. And with the way people flow
back and forth between cities, counties, and States, you simply must
have it nationwide. It does little good to have a good police force in
Marvland, or Baltimore, when they just move across the line to
Washington.
Chaii-man Pepper. Mr. Allen, to bear out ]\\<t what you said, my wife
and I were preparing to go for a Ions: weekend over on the shore and
we had a station wagon parked in Washington outside of our apart-
ment. Ou.r best things in there, several thousand dollars' worth of our
be-^t things. A little while and evervthing was gone.
I got in touch with the local police immediately and they came up
there, and I finallv said, "What are vou goin<r to do?'' They said, "We
1238
are going to check the pawnshops around here, the usual sources that
we have."
A little while later, a few days later, I said. "Did you ever get any
leads? -'"No."
"Did you check Baltimore?" "No," they didn't check Baltimore.
Wiat could have been simpler than anybody just putting all of that
stuff in a car and taking it over to Baltimore and running it through
a pawnshop or fences there ?
We had here last week some representatives of the prosecuting at-
torney's office here in the District of Columbia. He was telling us
about a very fine computer system they have which covers very
thoroughly everything that is going on in the District. They find the
fellov,? sometimes being on trial in one court had a case in another court
in tlie District they don't know anything about.
But we brought out just what you said. Have you got that kind of
system for the whole country at all ?
Mr. Allen. No, sir.
Chairman Pepper. You are so right. We have got to establish in the
FBI or some central place, information to give you. If you have a man
before you in Baltimore, you can check through that computer and find
out everything about that man's record all over the country. Wouldn't
that be valuable ?
Mr. Allen. They have been talking about that for years, but nothing
is going to happen until the Federal Government puts enough pres-
sure or enough money in to do it.
Chairman Pepper, Right.
Mr. Allen. We have eight district courts, or nine district courts in
Baltimore, plus nine criminal courts, and there have been cases where
people have been tried in two or three courts under a different name and
we never know who we are trying — ^because we have no method of get-
ting information back.
Chairman Pepper. This system is based on fingerprints, so if there
is an alias involved it wouldn't make any difference about names.
Mr. Allen. That is right. That case like your case might never be
solved because the chance of a defendant escaping punishment, escap-
ing getting caught, No. 1, and escaping punishment, No. 2, are very
good. That is one of the contributing factors, the fact he has a very
good chance of getting away with it. That type of crime, the sneak
thief crime, as well as the other type, like holdups.
You don't see people use masks very much any more. The reason is
because he knows he has a good shot of getting away with it, maybe 05
to 5, 1 don't know. So that is why he doesn't take much trouble to dis-
guise himself. Everybody sees him and even takes his picture, but he
still gets away, because we simply do not have the equipment to deal
with it.
Even if he is caught, the crowded court calendars, the inefficient pros-
ecutors, the 5^oung fellows who are doing the best they can, but they
are not pros, they are not professionals. The court system that is slow
and ponderous gives them a good chance to escape, even forget the
right fellow. So there is no certainty of punishment any more.
Organizations like this organization, bodies like this body, have to
take a drastic step to revise the entire system. Minimum standards at
every stage where it is vital for police, for prosecutors, for courts, and
1239
an acknowlcdo7nent. A lot of trouble we have got just because many
years ago a series of tough decisions began to come down and we have
never been able to adjust to those decisions.
Take one, for instance, the Miranda decision. We have never been
able to adjust to the fact, at 8 o'clock in the morning, the policeman says
to the fellow, "If you don't have a lawyer, we will see one is appointed
for you"; the fellow says, "All right. I am ready to talk; get me a
lawyer." What is the policeman going to do at 3 o'clock in the morn-
m<A Nothinsr. So he waits until the next morning and it is too late
then.
There are any number of situations where we simply have never ad-
justed to the new Court decisions. I don't know how^ long ago Miratida
was — at least 6 or 7 years ago. But still, in Baltimore, we can't do any-
thing unless we happen to know the man's lawyer, which happens very
seldom. But the average street criminal doesn't have a lawyer. He says,
"OK, get me a lawyer and I'll talk." He knows we can't get him a
lawyer.
Take the Wade series. In Baltimore, we have abandoned lineups be-
cause we don't know how to handle Wade. When I say "we," I mean
the whole system. We don't know how to handle the Wade series and
the problems they raise.
We have a case 3 months old up there, an identification issue, and
it was never a lineup. Wliy ? Because they couldn't get a lawyer to line
up. Why ? I just couldn't do it.
So we got a case where identification is crucial, and the man comes —
bv now his hair is longer and he has grown a beard, and has different
clothes on, and it is 8 months later and you might have trouble identify-
ing him. So you lose a lot of cases like that because of the inability of
the system to adjust to the change in case law and statute law.
I would urge the committee to think strongly in terms of not only in-
novative approaches — they will help in one area here and there— but
overall, looking at the entire system, to professionalize it and bring it
up to the present-day level of achievement we need to have in order to
progress in this system.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much, Mr. Allen.
Mr. Counsel, what is your pleasure ?
Mr. NoLDE. I think we could hear from Judge Moylan and then have
questions.
Statement of Hon. Charles Moylan
Judge ^loYLAN. Thank you, Mr. Counsel and Mr. Chairman. I also
appreciate the opportunity to come down and appear before this com-
mittee.
I would say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, although I have enjoyed
the relative tranquility of an appellate bench for the last 2i/^ years,
I suspect for purposes of this committee's hearing my credentials are
more as State's attorney in Maryland's Baltimore City, as the predeces-
sor in office of Mr. Allen, rather than an appellate judge.
Chairman Pepper. We would like to hear you in both capacities. We
are interested in what the courts can do to speed up the disposition of
cases, to move the system more effectively forward.
1240
Judge MoYLAN. I have some thoughts in this area. I would say that
as a predecessor of Mr. Allen, in office for 12 years, that between Mr.
Allen and myself we can speak for the State's attorney's office of Balti-
more City from January 1958 right up to date, with one brief hiatus.
I think our philosophies are very similar.
I, first of all, concur very heartily with you, Mr. Chairman. I think
the major deterrent to crime in this country today is by no means the
length of the sentence, the severity of sentence in a rare and bizarre case
where a criminal is actually caught, convicted, and sentenced, but
rather if we could ever achieve the sureness and swiftness of some
punishment in the vast majority of cases.
I have seen over the last 12 to 14 years two major impediments to that
sureness and swiftness of the criminal justice system. One was a prob-
lem I shared and I battled along with Mr. Allen, and neither one of
us. successfully, has answered that challenge yet. although I commend
him on the major efforts he is making, and that is the effort to profes-
sionalize the role of the prosecutor.
And I mean the workaday assistant State's attorneys, assistant dis-
trict attorney, who is actually there in the pits in the court.
When I went to law school, as relatively recently ago as the mid-
1950'S, the criminal law was considered very much of an intellectual
backwater. It was a course taught in the first semester of the first year.
The professors v/ere disdainful of it, the public at large and bar associ-
ations were disdainful of it. And although we may in some instances
have suffered from some of the decisions of the Warren court, in one
respect I think that court was a blessing to law enforcement, of the
criminal law, because it took what had been an intellectual backwater
and made it reallv the dynamic frontier of what is going on in the law.
And today, with the constitutional law and the criminal law over-
lapping, it is not only one of the most challenging, but one of the most
complex areas of law that any attorney has to deal with.
Chairman Pepper. Judge, if I may interrupt, I found about the
same attitude toward the criminal law when I was at Harvard Law
School from 1921 to 1924. My recollection is that criminal law was a
half-year course.
Judge MoYLAN. I am sure that is all it was, Mr. Chairman. And yet
today it is very different. The attention that is given by the Harvard
and Yale Law Review, by professors all over the country. It is an ex-
citing area that young men are willing to go into today. Yet, I can
also harken back to when I w^ent to the State's attorney's office as a
young assistant, just out of law school in 1958, the attitude of the
judges then was, "Well, Charlie, it's a good opportunity. Get in there
and make what you can out of it in 2 3'ears, but,"' and to a man they
said, "don't stay too long."
The idea was then to be assistant State's attorney and assistant prose-
cutor in any of our jurisdictions, it was a good training ground. It
was a postgraduate course in trial practice. It Avas very part time; no
one was going to stay for longer than 2 years.
In talking to my counterparts and now Mr. Allen's counterpart in
the National District Attorneys Association, all over the country, with
a few exceptions, the light that has hit every elected prosecutor, even
if he could go out and hire and recruit good people, they are going
1241
to stay with him for an average of 2 years. lie is going to turn over
almost an entire stall every second and third year.
When you talk about turning over a stall' of 80,100 lawyers, you
really are crippled before you start. It takes a year or so before the
man acquires enough experience to be truly productive, and by the
time you have a capable functionary in that ollice, he is coming in and
saying, "Boss, can I have 5 minutes? I just got an opportunit}'. I told
you I would stay with you 3 years, and if you insist I will, but I have
the golden opportunity of my life. Are you going to hold me to it ?"
And, of course, you can't, even if you could.
Chairman Pepper. I have a law office in Miami Beach, Fla., and I
had a letter written to me, primarily written to me as a Congressman.
This young man was graduating in June from the University of Miami
Law "School, magna cum laude, and the mother w^as waiting me to see
if I could help him get a job somewhere practicing law in the Greater
Miami area, where he wanted to live.
I imagine he never thought about going into the prosecuting at-
torney's office, except, as you say, maybe for 2 or 3 years' experience.
Yet, that is the kind of young man you ought to have. It is that kind
of mentality.
Judge MoYEAX. Completely. That is what we need today with the
law being as complex as it is, and yet for several reasons the system is
crippled almost before it starts. Ten years ago, of course, the idea a
man was going in for just a year or so, even during that year or so, he
would be very part time. He would begin building his private practice
and was giving at best 4 or 5 hours a day in his job as prosecutor,
which is full-time employment to read the latest decisions and tiy to
keep up with the changes in the law.
The thing that crippled us then and is still not eliminated nation-
wide is the idea the prosecutor's office was always a political forum.
You had to belong to the party of the man who was the elected prose-
cutor. You had to live and vote in that particular jurisdiction. Mr.
Allen has made great strides in eliminating that as a consideration,
and yet you have to fight an entire system.
A few years ago, as an elected Democrat, I dared to hire a few good
qualified young Eepublicans, although I didn't even know it, I didn't
even ask them. It was heresay to the organization, the muldoons around
town where, for the preceding 50 years, if you didn't have the recom-
mendation of the local ward boss or local district boss, you didn't even
aspire to going into a prosecutor's office.
"When we compounded the heresay by hiring not only those of inde-
pendent or opposite party status, but who didn't even live or work in
the city but in surrounding counties, the cries went out from both
parties alike.
But the big difficulty is salary. We found in Baltimore City the
tiling that hurt us so much was not just the starting salary; we have
to get it up to where we can compete Avith the best, but we have got to
be competitive with the competing agencies. Raising our salaries a
little bit for the young new prosecutor would do us no good whatsoever
if we were not competitive with the U.S. attorney's office, the State
attorney's office. State sclicitor's office, with the better private law
firms.
1242
I think what our local governments, State, municipal, and county,
have o-ot to recognize is that if this business of bringing the criminal
to the bar of justice is important, and if it is as complex as it unques-
tionably is today, you have got to get out there in that competitive
market, decide what it takes to compete for the top graduates, for the
"Law Review" people, to get them initially to compete with the better
law firms. Once you get them initially, you have to be able to offer the
increments to hold them.
When we do take the battle to our own city council in Baltimore,
the idea would be, "Well, as long as you can pay attractive salaries to
hire initially out of law school, why worrj^ about the raise you can
talce them to a year later or 2 years later, because you don't expect to
hold them more than 2 years, do you ?
And with that prevailing attitude, no incentive was given to keep
a man in the system.
In my experience in traveling nationally, there are two areas I
commend to the committee's attention, but I suspect they have already
testified before you. One is Los Angeles, under the excellent direction
of Joe Busch.
Chairman Pepper. We had him last week.
Judge ]\IoYLAN. I know Edward Younger, now attorney general of
California, revolutionized that office some 10 years ago.
Chairman Pepper. We had Mr. Younger in 1969, when we started,
in the first year of this committee's life.
Judge MoYLAN. He could certainly offer a lot because they pioneered
what a prosecutor's office ought to be nationwide.
The second example that really shines in my mind is Detroit in
Wayne County. What happened just in the last 5 years in Detroit has
really brought them up on a par with Los Angeles, and I think the
two together represent the best salary structure in the country. Not
simply in terms of initial recruiting, but also in terms of taking the
men up, the 2-, the 3-, the 4-year veteran, to where they can move
up in that chosen subdivision of the legal profession, just as they
could move up in any other area of government, or indeed in the
private sector.
William Cahalan, the county prosecutor I believe his title is, in
Detroit, I was having dinner with him several months ago and he
indicated that out of a staff of 110 attorneys in Wayne County, 80
of them, who have 5, 6 years experience or more, 80 of them are at
a salary level of $20,000 a year or above.
Chairman Pepper. Good.
Judge MoYLAN. With that type of enlightenment, they are holding,
Los Angeles and Detroit are holding their people 15-20 years, and
not turning them over every 2 years the way most of us in the United
States suffer.
Both Joe Busch and William Cahalan offered a second thought.
They thought in holding their people it was not simply the salary,
though salary was unquestionably a significant consideration, but also
the fringe benefits. They were oriented to holding people for years
and, as a result, be it contributory by the State, the Blue Cross/Blue
Shield, good pension programs, the job vesting some sort of tenure,
of security, to be on probation for a j^ear or so, but to feel if you then
commit yourself on that third or fourth critical year to a career in
1243
the office, you will not 12 years later be bounced out simply because
there has been an electoral change at the top.
There was job security and both Los Angeles and Detroit feel that
is a factor in holding good people.
So this is an area I think with national correction, prosecutors'
offices — the prosecutors know this is the way they have got to go with
tlieir local supporting legislative bodies and county commissioners
and city councils, that need to know that that is what is needed.
The second thought — and I don't want to trespass on the commit-
tee's time — is something that occurred to me during my years in the
prosecutor's office, and my experience on the bench simply confirmed
it, that the greatest impediment I have seen nationwide to a sureness
and the swiftness of the criminal justice system has been the conges-
tion that makes it literally impossible nationwide for the system to
handle the vast caseload that has fallen upon the shoulders of that
system today.
Although neither Mr. Allen nor I can claim any innovative credit,
I can at least offer one experiment that Maryland may have to show
to the rest of the Nation. It is really not an innovation on anyone's
part, but a historic accident, and that is this : as we look around the
country, one of the scourges of the system, a full 90 to 95 percent of the
cases never come to trial. They are swept under the rug or dealt with
summarily, in what is called the plea-bargaining process. You take
5 to 10 percent of the cases in a lucky jurisdiction to the trial table,
and in the system we talk about, a full 90 to 95 percent are bargained
away, and in a place like New York City, bargained away in a bargain-
basem.ent fashion. Not simply where you compromise a potential
20-year felony, let us say, of armed robbery down to a 10-year max-
imum felony of unarmed robbery that may be a legitimate compro-
mise, but to compromise it all the way down to a 1-year misdemeanor
of simple assault, I think is criminal in and of itself.
In most of our big jurisdictions, the cities, at least the metropolitan
counties, simply cannot handle the caseloads. The defendants know it,
the defense attorneys know it, and almost any kind of a shoddy offer
of a guilty plea will be accepted, though for a 20-year armed robbery
you are taking 6 months for the misdemeanor of simple assault.
I was shocked when I took office some years ago now, to go up and
figure I would learn from my senior counterpart in New York City.
In talking with some of the people in one of the best offices in the
country, traditionally, Frank Hogan's in the County of New York,
Manhattan, I was shocked to learn, despite the quality of the trial, they
indicted in Manhattan in the late 1960's some 8,000 to 9,000 felony in-
dictments per year at that time. I said, "How do j^ou dispose of them ?"
And he talked about the cases they took to the trial table and, lo and
behold, my jaw dropped when I learned they were trying between
80 and 120 cases per year out of 8,000 to 9,000. That over a decade they
had been trying.
I don't mean to single out any one jurisdiction, it was typical of
the large cities. They would go to the trial table with between 2 and
3 percent of the cases per year and plea bargain av/ay 97 to 98 percent.
Now, in Baltimore City, in INIaryland, we have never had to do that.
Where the figures nationwide would be 80 to 90 percent of the cases
disposed of on plea bargain, 10 to 20 percent of the cases taken to the
1244
t rial table in Maryland, with the exception of the Washington suburbs
of Maryland, would seem to follow the national pattern rather than
tiie ancient classical Maryland pattern, we have typically taken to the
trial table 85 to 90 percent of the cases and ondy plea bargained away
10 to 15 percent.
Chairman Pepper. I imagine you have the highest percentage of
trials in tlie country, don't you ?
Judge MoYLAN. I think we do by far. ]\Ir. Chairman, because we
have a system that is unique among American States. And I under-
stand in all of the common law jurisdictions of the North American
Continent north of the Rio Grande, we share the experience only with
the Province of Ontario. They seem to have inherited the same acci-
dent that we did.
But that accident is what makes it possible to take 85 to 90 percent
of the cases to the trial table. Even the 10 to 15 percent which end up
guilty pleas are not really bargained away; it is simply the defense
attorneys virtually forced the guilty plea upon us. They are coming
in and throwing down their hands; they are capitulating, not liter-
ally, not really bargained.
The thing that has made that possible is not that we work longer
hours, or our judges work longer hours, but rather we have had from
the earliest day of the proprietary colony under Lord Baltimore, a
system where the typical Maryland defendant and typical Maryland
defense attorney will exercise his election of saying "Court Trial"
instead of "Jury Trial."
I went through the experience 10 years ago. and Mr. Allen, coming
over this morning, tells me he subsecjuently has gone through it. of
having our colleagues from around the country look at us as if we
v/ere some type of freaks when we tell them we try most of our cases
to the court and not to the jury.
We, of course, have in our constitution, as well as the national one,
the right to a jury trial, but the mere i-ight to the jury trial does not
mean everyone or 99 percent of the defendants have to exercise that
I'ight.
Chairman Pepper. It can be waived by any defendaPLt ?
Judge MoYLAX. Further, Mr. Chairman, we try to shy away even
from the phraseology "waiving it" with tlie idea that implies the
superior, the accepted trial mode is waived, and you then accept a
secondary or lesser trial mode.
We prefer to think of it as an election between two equals.
Chairman Pepper. I see.
Judo;e MoYLAX. And we have for 300 vears and the most definitive
tracing of it, I would make reference to an article by a former chief
judge of Maryland, Carroll Bond, back in 1925, in the American Bar
Association Journal referred to the Maryland practice of trying crim-
inal cases by judges alone, without juries. Where he traces this through
colonial times, and it is just the accepted practice in most of our cases.
As State's attorney of Baltimore, I did a survey 3 years ago of the
cases that came through the Baltimore office between 1952 and 1969.
During that period, in the early part of the period, we were having our
grand jury hand down indictments in felony or felony equivalent
cases in some 4,000 cases per year. Toward the end of the 17-year
1245
period, we Avere up between 8,000 or 9,000 cases. So we are dealing with
8,000 or 9,000 felony cases a year.
Over that 17-year span guilty pleas accounted for some 14 percent
of trial dispositions. During that 17-year span some excess of well over
100.000 felony cases, 86 percent of the cases were disposed of at the
trial table in actually contested trials.
Again, during that 17-year span the percentage of jury trials of
those thousands per year ranged between 1 and •> percent.
We had a couple of tough judges on the bench, and we were up to-
ward the 3 percent. "With the softer judges on the bench, down closer
to 1 percent. But during all of tliat spaii we ran between i and ■] per-
cent jury trials and. conversely, of course, between 97 and 99 percent
court trials.
Mr. Allen did indicate to me that in the last couple of years it has
gone up and probably the contested trials, the percentage of jury trials,
is closer to 10 percent today. But even though it represents to me a
shocking increase, to the rest of the country, it might be the Ciod-send
that would save the system.
I would point out further — and I hope the Supreme Court, if the
case ever got to them, wull be cognizant of the fact, although they may
l^e disdainful of the court trial versus the jury trial in looking at most
American jurisdictions, thev should look at Maryland in tei-ms of what
the court trial represents there. Because in most American jurisdic-
tions, submitting to the court is tantamount to throwing yourself upon
the mercy of the court. It is in all the technology a guilty plea or a nolo
contendere plea. Where, in Maryland, our court trial is really a liotly
contested trial.
I have over the years, and with Mr. Allen on the other side of the
trial table, taken cases to the trial table, capital cases, first-degree
murder cases, rape cases, kidnaping cases, before not one judge, but
sometimes panels of two and three judges, where we were battling
everything from insanity pleas to the admission of evidence, to the
admission of confessions, consuming sometimes 2 to 3 weeks at that
trial, fighting every step of the way, tooth and nail, and yet court
trial, not jury trial.
At even long, 1- or 2-week trials, of course, represented before the
jury 4, 6, or 8 weeks. But even the hotly contested cases, be it short
or long, inevitably has to consume approximately one-fourth oi- one-
third of the time"^ without the jury that would be involved before a
jury.
It is this historic accident that has made it possible for us to take
our cases to the trial table traditionally instead of plea-bargaining
them awav in a plea-bargaining basement.
And how long it would take to inculcate a habit in defense attorneys
in 49 other States and 13 other Canadian Provinces where they haven't
l3een doins it that way, where we have. Heaven only knows. But short
of that, there may be'^some alternatives that one could do, even where
jui'v trials are taken.
What the Federal System, I understand, has done and what we have
done in Maryland, that is, at least abbreviate the jury selection proc-
ess, don't consume^ as so frequently done in California — and it always
shocks us— 2 to 3 weeks just to pick a jury. That you don't have to go
throuirh a voir dire examination w-ith the defense attorney and prose-
1246
cutor each getting an individual crack, almost unlimited biographical,
psychological exploration of each potential juror almost endlessly,
with hundreds and hundreds of jurors.
Our system, and I understand the Federal one, is you propound the
questions, letting the judge propound them collectively for both attor-
neys, after they have been worked out in chambers.
Furthermore, that you direct the questions to a jury panel en masse
and not individually. Furthermore, even with that truncation, you
limit the questions to those things, as in our State, would go to estab-
lish challenge for cause and do not allow this voir dire selection process
to be an extensive biographical and, indeed, almost psychoanalytic
fishing expedition.
It may be as the Trial Advocacy Institute would indicate, the Lee
Baileys and Henry Kothblats expound in 2 or 3 days' trial advocacy
seminars, this is the perfect way to try a case. It may be, if v;e are
dealing in a system that has only one case but, as I indicated in a recent
opinion, talking about the Maryland system, I indicated that in macro-
cosm, perhaps three court trials represent more fundamental fairness
than one lengthy jury trial, plus two negotiated guilty pleas. You
have to look at the whole system.
Chairman Pepper. I wonder what actual difference it makes in the
result of a case that they have those 3- week-long voir dire examina-
tions of prospective jurors? I know they try to find out the slightest
predeliction on the part of the juror in one direction or the other, dis-
position or something. But human nature and the influences of one's
colleagues upon one's own judgment and decision, and the like, I doubt
if it makes a great deal of difference to either side.
Judge MoYLAN. I would think not.
Chairman Pepper. Whether they selected the jury 1 day or whether
they take 3 weeks to select the jury.
Judge MoYLAN. Because if you have two equally good attorneys,
it is a balance of terror, what one man wants and vice versa, and you
finally end up with the same resolve.
Furthermore, again for the trial of the century, maybe it is fine if,
again, we were up at Harvard in an Ames Club competition, to go
ahead and let it go on endlessly. But if, looking at the system as a
whole, what it represents is the so-called perfect trial for defendant A,
means defendants B, C, D, E, and F will never even get to the trial
table, then something is slightly out of joint with the entire system.
Chairman Pepper. That is right.
Judge MoYLAN. That really would be all I could cover. Again, we
cannot claim any innovation.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Allen used the word "pretrial." I believe we
are having Judge Spears. I wondered if we could apply more to crim-
inal cases the pretrial techniques we use in civil cases. Wliat is your
opinion ?
Judge MoYLAN. I would think so. During the days, not when I was
State's attorney and was sort of kicked upstairs to be the principal
administrator, but back in the "fun" days at the trial table, I used to
like to sit down, and if the judge were enforcing it, it could be done in
every case, with the defense attorney, and say, "Look, let's don't spend
hours contesting that which really is not in contest. Let's see what we
can agree upon."
1247
Chairman Pepper. That is right.
Judge MoYLAN. And if we agreed the woman who was burglarized
•did indeed live at that house and owned it for 30 years, let's don't take
20 minutes developing what is not contested. Let's zero in on the issue
and slide as quickly as possible through all of the noncontested areas
and then concentrate on what is really in issue.
Chairman Pepper. Do the judges ever have those pretrial confer-
ences between prosecuting and defense attorneys now?
Judge MoYT.AN. I am going to defer to Mr. Allen. We tried several
vears afro. We were thinking in those lines and made several efforts — ^I
am afraid abortive efforts — ^to get that going.
Mr. Allen. It has been tried tvrice without success. Judge Miles
tried this many years ago, just one judge, on an experimental basis
and abandoned it. Judge Cole tried it last year with good success in his
court, but he couldn't convince the other judges it was a good thing.
It is a good thing, but you have to be able to manage the criminal
bar. No. 1. You have to get them there. And then you have to have a
judge who is willing to do that.
You laiow, judges have a remarkable independence when they get
that robe on, and with some of them it is hard to order them around.
If you get the judges to do it, and get the defense lawyers to come there,
but vou have to have rules to do this. You have to change vour whole
proc/cdure.
In Detroit, they do have a forced pretrial, but without the judge.
There is a judge m charge but it is handled with some highly skilled,
professional State's attorneys, who have something lilvc 15-18 years'
experience and get paid almost $30,000 a year. Three fellows out of the
whole Wayne County handle pretrial and there is a pretrial judge.
He veiy seldom sees the combatants but they must come to the pretrial,
the defense lawyer. He comes by summons on a certain date set by
a judge, and when he comes there he deals with the pi-osecutor, the
defense lawyer, and sometimes the policeman. Every case is pretried
in Detroit.
I have never seen the Los Angeles system, but the Detroit system,
to my mind, which they have been working on for about 12 years, is
as close to a perfect prosec'ution system as I can imagine, in my opinion.
I understand Los Angeles has a similar system, but they do have a
pretrial. They do have a plea-bargaining session, but I don't think it
is like some of the other jurisdictions where you plea-bargain in self-
defense. You either plea-bargain or you can't try the case. I think
they make an intelligent plea Ibargain out there reasonably on the facts
of the case.
Pretrial would help. But you have to get the States to do it and give
them another judge or two more judges and that sort of thing, because
they are going to tell you, "We can't afford to do it ; we don't have the
time and the money."
Judge MoYLAN. It takes manpower and a little judicial arm twisting
because you are dealing with two dift'ercnt defense philosophies. "WTiere
the defense attorney really wants to get at the truth, you can nan-ow
the issues. But, of course, the vast majority of defendants would not
want the truth in the case to come out, and a good solid techni(iue
there of the defense attorneys is, "No, we are not going to make
anything easy on the State.'" They are going to rely on the overcrowded
95-158— 73— pt. 3— -19
1248
system somewhere to collapse, that the policeman, the witnesses, the
attorneys, the judge will not all show up on the particular day; the
case will be postponed. Postponed a second time, the third, and to be
purely the negative debater — ^"Go ahead, put your case on, and I will
try to shoot holes in it opportunistically w^herever you fail to touch a
nail."
Mr. Allen. Mr. Pepper, Judge Moylan brought a point to my mind.
We must not assume the defense lawyer or defendant wants a real
fair trial. We mustn't assume that. The'defense lawyer and the defend-
ant want to take advantage of every hole and weakness in the system.
Now, we are talking about speedy trial, but I have represented
criminal defendants all over the eastern part of the United States,
and in every field and I never met one who wanted a speedy trial yet.
Mr. NoLDE. Mr. Allen, your violent crime liaison program is an out-
standing program. Is there aiij reason why tliis couldn't be implemen-
ted in other major city prosecutor's offices ?
Mr. Allen. There is no reason at all, Mr. Nolde. We worked very
hard on this. AVe worked about G months before we really got started in
it. It could be used, it could be expanded to other fields of activity.
Because of our limited number and financing problems we only deal
with homicides and a few other special cases.
We find it is workable. I would recommend that if it is used in other
cities that the unit have its own. investigators hired by the prosecutor's
office to make extended investigations beyond the police investigation.
We dont have such an arrangement. We apparently can't achieve
it in Baltimore at the present time.
Mr. Nolde. Why is that, Mr. Allen ?
Mr. Allen. Well, our police commissioner feels that the prosecutor
shouldn't have his own investigators. That is sort of an interfamily
misunderstanding. I think the authorities are with me on the issue,
however. Those people who have spoken out about it, the National
Advisory Council on Criminal Law, I believe it was, on the courts,
that met here January 1, and the ABA, both set out the thought and
the theory that an efTective prosecutor's office must have its own
investigators and under its own control.
Of course, those successful offices around the country like some of
the offices in New Jersey, ISIichigan, and California, do have their own
investigators for the whole office, but for a specialized function you
must have them because the police theory in this country is entirely
arrest oriented. They have such a huge volume of work that once they
make the arrest, it is pretty hard to get them involved in extensive
investigation.
Some of the investigations we have undertaken have taken months
and months. You simpl}^ can't get police from other duties involved
in sucli an extensive investigation. If we have to go out at 12 o'clock
at night or 3 in the morning, we have to call the man and go out.
In addition to that, the State's attorney's office — the police have no
subpena powers ; we do. So we can get witnesses there and talk with
them. We can do a lot of things and we can use the grand jury, we
can use immunity, and so on. In an extensive investigation, beyond
just arresting the guy as he leaves the scene, you have to have the
extraordinary powers of the prosecutor's office to really get into a
deep investigation.
1249
For instance, all of the investigations I have outlined here, phis
some more I can't think of right now, have been over an extended
period of time that would not have been uncovered had it not been
for this unit. I would recommend to any State that has the money and
can hire the people — incidentally, those people don't try any cases
either because they just don't have time. They don't try any cases and
devote full time to this enterprise.
The}'^ prepare the case and give it to the trial section. I recommend
to any jurisdiction they try something like this. I will give them all
the data they might need.
Apparently, it is not done anywhere else as I know of right now.
You can develop cases that should be developed. Everything I out-
lined to you and cases I haven't even told you about are cases that
would not have achieved that point of perfection had it not been for
this unit working on it.
]Mr. NoLDE. What you have said makes a great deal of sense. I am
unable to understand the argument against your office having its own:
investigators. Why is there this apparent reluctance?
Mr. Allex. I think the reluctance exists probably in many police
departments. You know, traditionally, the police department has been
the investigating agency and the State's attorney has been the trial
agency. Of course, that theory does not recognize the present status of
the law and the present intensity of involvement in criminal cases.
We are dealing with experienced criminals in many cases, people
who think before they commit crimes, and the limited tools of the
police department, which is the right to arrest, interrogate, and inspect
scenes, take pictures and tests, and so on, simplj- is not adequate any
longer for the intense, involved investigation. It is a question of
tradition. You have got to have legislators and people pulling the
strings who are powerful enough to understand this and make the
proper rulings.
Because nobody likes to surrender something they think is their
power. The attorneys, the prosecutor-investigator is an anathema to
police departments, particularly a strong police department. It is
something that is coming and something that is here, and we must
live with it to have the effective prosecution, but something the police
don't particularly like.
It is something we have got to face. We have outgrown the old
system.
Mr, XoLDE. Your drug strike force also utilizes police officers, I
understand that the police department reassigned their top men out of
the unit,
Mr, Allex, They only took one man out, the lieutenant. That was
a lieutenant and six officers under him. That force is designed very
much like the liaison for violent crimes, and they were doing extremely
well until this happened. But I think it illustrates the problem that
I am trying to
Mr. NoLDE. Why did they pull their top man out of that unit?
Mr. Allex. I don't know if I can quite answer that.
Mr. NoLDE. What reason did they give ?
Mr. Allex. We were having another confrontation with the police
department about a case in which our lines of authority crossed, which
it naturally crossed, and we summoned certain records to the grand
1250
jury for examination, which is our right and the proper thing for us
to do. Directly after that, these men were pulled out without notice
and the reason given was, "Career development."
Now, that is the only reason that has ever been given.
Mr. ;N'olde. That is a reason, I gather, you find hard to accept?
Mr. Allen. Well, I have my personal belief, but that was the official
reason given — career development. I will have to accept that as the
official and proper reason.
But the effect of this — and I only say this to indicate the necessity
for one's own investigators — was to stop the strike force effort. We had
a grand jury paid $230 a day; they met once or twice a week, and this
man was such a powerful investigator that immediatel}^ after he left,
the investigative effort collapsed and we couldn't get it going again.
Thankfully, he is back now and we hope to finish up with our
grand jury maybe in June. We do expect to get indictments, important
indictments.
But that is simply an illustration of the reason why an effective
prosecutor must have somebody he can control ; he can hire them and
fire them, select them and do anything he wants with them, and they
are absolutely loyal to him.
Mr. NoLDE. Were the police afraid your investigators might start to
investigate police operations ?
Mr. Allen. I don't know that, but it is conceivable. It is certainly
conceivable that a normal investigation running its course might touch
anybody. It is not unusual for an investigation to implicate police or
lawyers or other professions.
I don't know if that was the prime reason. I think it was simply a
result of this collision we had about summonsing records. Of course,
if my duty calls for me to summons records, I am going to summons
them, because that is my duty. Or to call a certain person before the
grand jury. I have to do that, too. I can't stop doing it because it is
going to hurt somebody's feelings. I either have to be the State's at-
torney or not the State's attorney.
These collisions and misunderstandings are going to occur because
it is necessary to summons before the grand jury — and these records,
or get records. A lot of people are not going to like it. I don't guess
anybody likes to come before the grand jury, but that is the system
M'e use. I imagine people will be irritated every now and then, but we
can't avoid that.
Mr. NoLDE. What did the "Missing Heroin Case" involve ?
Mr. Allen. That was a very peculiar case that has caused a lot of
consternation around Baltimore. It involved one of the largest seizures
that have ever been made in Baltimore, by an operation called the
stop squad. They seized some 6,000 bags of heroin of a very high
quality. I don't remember the exact number, but whatever the number
was, when they finally tried the case and they counted the contraband,
they found it was 50 bags short, apparently. Fifty bundles short, not
bags; 1,200 bags. That caused a great flurry of activity, and all of the
officers involved were questioned and put under lie detector and two
of them were suspended.
Then, of course, again a search for what they called the "missing
heroin" to determine what, if anything, happened to it. That is still
1251
an open case, and it was in connection with that case we summonsed
certain records of the grand jury.
Just recently we developed an important piece of information that
woukl indicate what happened to that missing heroin. But this is 4 or
5 months after it happened.
They found, durmg the course of this, that there was no method
by which you could guarantee the quality of seized merchandise after
the seizure and after the test, because they don't have any way of
making subsequent tests, and if a person could find some method of
substituting, he could do it, and that is apparently what happened in
this case.
After the material was tested by the chemist, somebody found a
method of substituting a noncriminal merchandise for this contra-
band and apparently disposed of the contraband on the open market.
We hope that case is drawing to a solution. But it caused a lot of
consternation and has been in the paper often.
I suppose it has been very embarrassing to the police department.
We hope that it will be resolved sometime in the very near f utui-e.
Mr. NoLDE. How long was the narcotic strike force in operation ?
Mr. Allen. October 1971. It was a 3-year grant by the LEAA and
was designed in its third year to increase in size to about 10 people. 10
lawj^ers. Hopefully, after the first year, we would be able to get indict-
ments on some of the major figures in the narcotic traffic. The idea was
to develop material over a period of a year by investigation, talking to
informers, control vice surveillance, and develop conspiracy indict-
ments against the major narcotics organizations in Baltiuiore.
I think we are going to have a degree of success at that. That is the
best I can tell you at this point. While we were at this, another unit,
called DALE, which came into being several months after the strike
force came into being, also made arrests in the same areas but, of
course, with reference to the narcotics traffic, I don't think you can
have overabundance of police activity in that area.
We do have two or tJiT'ee major units working in Baltimore and
maybe that is the reason the crime rate is going down a little bit. Let's
hope so, anyhow.
Mr. NoLDE. So there Avere signs of success ?
Mr. Allen. I think we have done as well as we could, working imder
the conditions we worked under. I think it would have been better if
I had my own people working for me, my own investigators. But that
is neither here nor there. I am hopeful in the future, with m_ore en-
lightened thinking on the subject of the major prosecutors office, the
modern prosecutor's office, that officers will have their own investiga-
tor?. I think I am about the only large city that doesn't have them,
really. Most of them have — even a small force — most officers have them
and they are very successful.
Gold, in Brooklyn, has 24, and apparently they have a law there
that allows him to select his own from the police department, and once
t}-"^v ar'^ self^r>ted they become his investiirators. No more responsi-
b".Iity to the police department. They still pay them, but they are on
his staff.
In Chicago, the young man there whose name I can't remember has
his own crew. He had a crew like mine. Thev belonged to the police
but they worked for him. But as soon as the Republicans got in, they
1252
were taken from him and now he has his own and he is very happy with
them.
I don't know of any other officers, but every major city I have had
any major contact with, they have their own and they do very well
with them.
Mr. NoLDE. What success has your violent crime liaison program
experienced since its inception ?
Mr. Allen. I think we are too early to give you statistics, but we
have about maybe a dozen major cases that we have been able to de-
velop. Mr. Garsh may be able to give you a bit more inforniation on
that. We have about a dozen major cases, and we are satisfied that
these cases are of such a nature that none of them could have been
developed without that liaison. Because they all involve grand jury,
they all involve power of subpena, they all involve sometimes deposi-
tions. They all involve immunity, and there is something that if you
allow a case to develop in its normal fashion, it just doesn't happen.
Mr. NoLDE. Could you describe for us the purpose of that program
and how the program is intended to operate ? As I understand it, you
identify the important cases and concentrate your resources on ex-
peditiously moving them through the system.
]\Ir. Allen. Basically, the police, we work with the homicide unit or
with the CID unit which is the criminal investigation department.
And they call us when a case breaks and he either sends someone down
or goes himself. On the recent murder, involving the murder of a
policeman, we had three people involved and they worked half the
night on it. They developed the case proper!}^ and an nrrost vras mnde
on the scene. The case was processed within a matter of days. The
indictment came down something like the fourth day and, as Garsh
points out, the lawyer involved in the case was held in contempt on
the fifth day or something like that. It means if you get a prosecutor
who has the eventual responsibility of prosecuting that case into the
case early and all of the bugs that develop in the case, vou keep out of
it.
Like improper identification with the statement, problems with cer-
tain seizure, your problems of giving witness immunity, problems of
taking the witness before the grand jury at an early stage, or problems
of taking depositions from reluctant witnesses, or witnesses who are
going to disappear on you. Those are prosecutorial problems of fairly
recent origin because of the present-day complication of the law. They
are prosecutorial problems. But you don't have a case unless you de-
velop these things properly.
So, it is 3 or 4 months later on when we get the case under normal
conditions and it is too late to do those things. So, therefore, your case
goes out the window.
I want to explain how this unit works. We had a murder aboard a
ship in a harbor. We had jurisdiction, the Federal Government had
jurisdiction, and, of course, Germany had jurisdiction. Now, if we
rushed out and arrested this man like we normally do, and prosecuted
him in our jurisdiction, it would cost at least $100,000, maybe more,
maybe half a million, to bring the people from all over the world there.
It would be 6 months from now to try a case in Maryland and we have
interpreters to deal with and so on. It would have been a heck of a
case.
1253
This young man beside me conferred with people in Germany and
the people on the steamship line and, eventually, he brought two detec-
tives here from Hamburg, Germany, and he arranged to have the
prisoner taken back to Germany for trial. This pleased us a great deal
because, first of all, we saved the money, which is probably more money
than the whole liaison team could cost us a year. We got the case out
of our jurisdiction. And that to me is something that would nev^er have
been done without this force. Where the poor man would have been
arrested, by now been indicted, and we would be worried about how to
try a German in our courts, when all of the witnesses were all over the
world on a freighter. We may never have gotten the thing tried. That
is another case, innocent, the guy is in jail, he can't get out because he is
a foreigner and can't post bail. We can't get the case tried because we
can't get the witnesses together. Maybe a year from now, he is still
sitting there.
We get in a case early and we apply the prosecutorial skills to it
where they are needed. We give advice to the police because, as Judge
Moylan was pointing out, getting a case that is any part of a legal
problem is not easy any more, getting the case prepared. The simple
matter of identification of the defendant is now a complicated mat-
ter. Confessions, you know the problem with that. And they have been
Ivuown to call up the public defender and get him down there for a
lineup. "^^Hiich means that the case moves forward as it is supposed
to move forward rather than dropping a very important part of the
ca se — identification.
They are expediters, I suppose. Expediter, prosecutors, investiga-
tors. And this is the type of thing that has to be done with your good
cases if you want to move them. Of course, a good case can collapse.
We don't care what kind of an arrest they made or anything like that,
but time can erode a good case to such a point it is no good because the
investigative procedures and the trial procedures are so intensely
complicated now, you must have a prosecutor in the case early.
Take the simplest case: Like you arrest a man running from the
scene, but you don't have that in most cases. The case recently made,
they worked for som.ething like 4 months and finall}' made an arrest in
the case. A very bizarre murder case and a case involving a very gross
fraud. That could never have been developed without the policeman
and one of Gersh's men working side by side for 4 months to get this
thing developed. We finally made an arrest about 2 or 3 weeks ago.
But I really think that the theory could be applied to other areas,
like armed robbery, for instance, which are no easy matter any more.
You know, nobody ever uses a mask any more. They go on because
identification is such a problem and the police have such trouble
with the identification process that it is not a simple matter anyway.
You simply don't come into court and say, "That's the guy that robbed
me," and expect to get a conviction. I advocate very strongly the ap-
plication of this theory in a lot of areas in prosecution and law
enforcement.
^Ir. NoLDE. IVIr. Gersh, do you have anything to add to INIr. Allen's
remarks?
Mr. Gersh. Mr. Nolde, some of the significant things we can point
to, since we started our operation we have not had a single search
warrant that we have drawn, been found to be illegal bv any court.
1254
Mr. NoLDE. When did you start ?
Mr. Gersh. The grant started in July of 1972. It took until Sep-
tember to staff it and until January to work the bugs out of it. So, since
January, I would say we have been operational to the fullest extent
we can expect to with our limited manpower.
The problems that we looked at and tried to solve were, No. 1, the
expediting of the case through the court. "Wliat we did in that instance
was to make arrangements with the court through the chief judge of
the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City to have trial dates that would
be reserved, that would be reserved, that w^ould be used by no one else
but our unit, so that when a man was arrested, theoretically, a police
officer could say, "I have arrested you and you are going to trial on
a certain date." In actuality, what it was, because of the delayed
dockets in our courts and overcrowded dockets, even if we brought the
case to the grand jury quickly, by the time the lawyer got in the
picture and we then wanted to schedule a trial and the man wanted a
jury trial, there might be a 3-month delay before the first jury trial
would be available.
So what we have done is reserve trial dates, so we can move trials
much faster. We have an average time now from arrest to grand jury
indictment of 1 week, where prior to the preliminary hearing process
it might be as much as a month. From the arrest to trial we want to
get down to 60 days. We are now down to about 75 days, which is
still quite an accomplishment, we feel.
Mr. NoLDE. What is the average time from arrest to disposition in
the usual case?
Mr. Allen. Approximately, about 6 months, I would think now in
my jurisdiction.
Mr. Gersh. Also, what we have done, we have taken the file, the file
in any case that this unit is handling, and we have color coated the file.
We actually put it in a bright red file so any assistant in our office who
handles that file knows it is a priority file ; he is to resist all postpone-
ments in the case. The idea is to get the case tried and concluded as
quickly as possible.
Mr. NoLDE. This would apply to all homicides and violent crimes ?
Mr. Gersh. What we have done is we are working through the
terms of our grant at the invitation of the officer in charge of the case.
And as a practical matter now, we get involved in every homicide
in Baltimore City. It might be interesting for you to know that last
year in Baltimore City we had some 850 prosecutable homicides. That
is exclusive of any self-defense, justified or other types of killing that
would not be prosecuted.
We also get involved in armed robbery where we are asked. We got
involved in some other bizarre cases where the police have asked us
to get involved, such as one case involved the tremendous cache of ex-
plosives and weapons. We got involved in surveillance with the police
through the search warrants, made the arrest and got the conviction.
The case came to trial somewhere around 45-50 days after arrest, and
the man was sentenced to 5 years.
We were involved in a kidnaping case. We were involved with one
extensive fraud case because the police asked us to get involved with
it. Even though it wasn't a violent crime, they asked us and we -Rent,
1255
We have drawn up one or two wiretap orders involved with homicide
investigations and they were iiphckl. We also found that some prose-
cutors' offices in the metropolitan area have asked us for advice. The
Carroll County Prosecutor's Office asked us for help in a bank robbery
case, and the Howard Count}' Prosecutor's Office asked us for help in
a solicitation of murder case. We also were involved in a case that
involved a double homicide on two youncr teenage girls on the Eastern
Shore of Maryland. The State police called us and said they had in-
formation the weapon was in Baltimore City. So we drew up the search
warrants and went out with the State police, recovered the weapon, the
oase was tried last week in Annapolis, Mel., and this was a success-
ful conviction. A search warrant was properly drawn and upheld by
the court.
Some of the other objectives that we have been able to do, one is just
the close cooperation between the police and prosecutor. From my
experience, I found one of these problems always is communication.
That communication gap has been narrowing. We have absolutely no
problem between the working police officer, the working detective and
the working assistant from our end. We work at the call of the police
department.
Several weeks ago, we had, as Mr. Allen mentioned, the homicide of
a police officer. It was on a Friday afternoon at 3 o'clock. The police
called us and the police were rounding up a number of witnesses.
This homicide took place in an open street, in the daylight. There were
many witnesses. One of my assistants went to the police headquarters
building where witnesses were being taken to be questioned and he was
present there. Another assistant went directly to the crime scene and
with the officers preserved the crime scene, I, myself, went to one of the
district police offices that was acting as headquarters for the
investigation.
This took place on Friday afternoon. We worked through the night.
Monday morning we indicted. Monday afternoon the defense lawyer
filed a motion for a bail hearing, and we were ready to go and we had
our bail hearing. You see we took additional witnesses mto the grand
jury and the next day we had a problem with the defense lawyer and
he was cited for contempt.
That case was, from the State's point of view, in the prosecutable
position within 3 days after the homicide. AVlienever the defense is
ready, we are ready to go on that case.
Mr. NoLDE. I take itthat this procedure required the cooperation of
the defense bar or the defenders office and the judges ?
Mr. Gersh, One of the problems in criminal prosecution today is
seeing the defendant has a lawyer. The professional defendant will
use this as a stalling tactic, because as the case grows old the advantage
of the case goes to the defendant. The witnesses disappear, their mem-
ories grow hazy, they get intimidated ; so a professional defendant will
do everything possible to avoid speedy trial, something that I think
that is advantageous to the prosecution.
One of his ways of stalling is not to have a lawyer and he cannot be
tried in most courts. We make arrangements with the public defender
in these given cases immediatelv. If a man does not have a lawyer, the
public defender will get in the case and we supply the public defender
•with copies of all of the reports and all of the information that he
1256
would normally have to go through in a discovery process to get. We
volunteer to give it to him immediately so he can make the judgment.
We save him the time and work and it speeds up the process and he
is ready to defend in a much speedier fashion.
Also, if a man is not guilty, if he is innocent, it gets him out of the
system much faster. Also, some of the things we have discovered, we
never even thought about, that didn't enter into the picture, are now
beginning to show. We find that there are more pleas in these case and
we never even considered that.
We also find, because our unit is in a position to grant immunity or
work out deals where necessary, other units of the police department
are coming to us. As a result of that, we have a situation in Baltimore
where we had a series of robberies that got the niclaiame of "Bonnie
and Clyde" robberies because it was a woman involved with a series
of men that were switching off pairs and committing armed robberies.
A police officer in one of the districts, the police in Baltimore, arrested
the woman. When she was arrested, she said she wanted to give some
information and what could the police do for her in return. They
contacted our unit and we were talking with her when she described
one of the holdups and the description of the holdup that she de-
scribed to us was so similar to a murder we were investigating. Then we
started to ask questions about the murder.
Now, the homicide detective had no idea what was going on in this
district with this woman. The district officers had no idea of the homi-
cide investigation, but we were told about both. As a result of that, we
did clear a homicide. In that case there were 10 defendants who were
arrested, at least 6 of them have been tried and convicted by this time.
And 65 burglaries were cleared, a host of armed robberies, and the
homicide.
Mr. NoLDE. Have you had an increased conviction rate subsequent
to the initiation of this program, or is it too early to tell ?
Mr. Gersh. It is too early to tell. I would suspect that we do, but I
haven't any statistics with me at this time. I would be happy to work
them up and supply them to you.
[The statistics had not been received at time of printing.]
Mr. Gersh. We had another situation, also, just again a side issue,
an interesting thing where a defendant was arrested in a robbery case
and he took the position, because he was a recidivist type of felon, he
had been in and out of jail many years, he didn't want to talk to police
officers, and he said, "I will not talk to the police." So the police asked
us to come down. We handled the interrogation of this particular pris-
oner. We took a 30-page statement from him. He told us about several
shootings several armed robberies, one homicide in Baltimore, two
homicides in New York, narcotic traffic between New York and Balti-
more, and then gave us information about the whereabouts of three
escaped murderers. We corroborated all of his information we worked
with the police for about 30 straight hours, drew search warrants,
went with them on the raid, arrested the three escaped murderers and
an additional bonus, we got 65 weapons we didn't know about.
This would have never come about unless there was someone other
than a police officer who talked to him.
1257
We also found the police bar come to us right away. They now know
who to talk to in a homicide. They know there is an assistant im-
mediately available who has some knowledge about the case. You
don't have this lag of months before there is someone in the prosecu-
tor's office who is a position to talk about the case and work out some-
thing with the case. These benefits we didn't consider in setting up the
program, and we find they are working out very well.
Mr. NoLDE. Judge Moylan, I would like to get your ideas on some of
the suggestions put forward to eliminate the appellate delays, par-
ticularly with regard to the elimination of written briefs. Do you feel
judges would be able to expedite the appellate process by not having
written briefs filed in every case routinely ?
Judge ]S[oYLAX. It is an extreme measure. Again, as a relatively
rookie judge, I feel a bit less competent in this area than addressing
some of the other problems of State's attorney emeritus.
Frankly, in ]Slaryland, with Maryland being a small State, we have
not yet felt the full impact of appellate case congestion that many
States have felt. I am on an intermediate court, and it is an intermedi-
ate court which is just now in its 6th year of life. This court has pro-
vided relief from what was rapidly becoming a congested appellant
docket with our former single appellate court, the court of appeals.
At the moment, we have not really been hit by the flood. Tt may be
when that day comes, as unquestionably, it some day shall, we will have
to go to some of these resorts, the screening processes of taking cases
not as a matter of right to the appellant, but with some discretion,
some screening discretion being exercised by the appellate court. It
may be we will have to resort in some cases, if not all, to oral argument
as opposed to the written briefs. But, frankly, in Maryland, this is
purely speculative at the moment because we are not faced with difficult
congestion at the appellate level.
Mr. NoLDE. Does the delay in getting the transcript constitute a
major factor in creating appellate delay?
Judge MoYLu\x. It is a factor. One thing that seems to be slowing the
system doAvn is waiting for the court reporter in the trial court to type
up the transcript. I think the difficult}^ there is, the court reporters are
a dying breed, they are hard to come by, and various lower courts
around the State, if not indeed around the Nation, have not been able
to get enough of them, where a person can be in court one day, and
off tyjDing up the next, or in court one week, and off doing his typing
the following week.
The difficulty is that he sits in court taking down his shorthand or
stenotype notes all day long for the full working day, and then is ex-
pected to go ahead and type up the transcripts or dictate to a typist
the transcripts, purely on moonlighting — not, indeed, moonlighting,
but on an afterhours basis.
I think our difficulty is we don't have enough court i-eporteis. We are
expecting them to fit all of this in their spare time, and there just is
not enough spare time.
]Mr. XoLnE. On juiy selection, do you feel that that constitutes a
significant delay to have the extended voir dire that is permitted ?
Judge MoYLAX. I think it does nationwide. Again, it does not in
Maryland. Xot only are we not plagued by the problem of the large
1258
percentage of jury trials that our counterparts around the country are
plagued with, but even in the relatively few jury trials we get, we have
abbreviated the jury selection process about as far as I think it can be
abbreviated. Typically, even for a more serious case, a jury can be
picked in Baltimore City and in most of the areas in the State of Balti-
more within 30 minutes, an hour and a half at the outset. We are never
involved in what to me is almost farcical jury selection processess of,
I will mention California just for the sake of example where weeks
and weeks, if not indeed months, can be consumed in putting 12 people
in the box to hear a case. In Baltimore, it would really be imheard of
for that process to ever consume more than an hour or 1^/2 hours
Mr. NoLDE. In Maryland, do you feel that the system is functioning
efficiently without jeopardizing the constitutional rights of the
defendant?
Judge MoYLAN. Completely. I think even within the context of an
individual case, it is working well without curtailing defendant's right.
I think even if some curtailment were involved which, in Marvdand,
it is not, it would still be worth it in macrocosm because of my belief
that half a day in court for three defendants is better than a full day
in court for one defendant and no time in couit at all for the remaining
two.
Mr. NoLDE. '^Vliat about the use of a grand jury ? Do you feel that is
called for in the normal run-of-the-mill criminal case, oris that another
wasteful tool in terms of time ?
Judge MoYLAN. Yes and no. I think the grand jury can effectively
be eliminated, not as an investigative arm, but as a screening process if
a local prosecutor is given the manpower, quantitatively and quali-
tatively, to do the screening and preparatory job that in many juris-
dictions, Baltimore among them, in the past at least, falls upon the
grand jury by default. I think the prosecutor could do it more quickly,
he could do it better, but he has got to have veteran-trained prosecutors
able to make high-level decisions to go ahead and make those decisions
for him.
I would just make it clear that in saying that, I am not suggesting
the elimination of the grand jury because I think even if this screening
process were taken away from them, even if this process which may
involve 08 percent of their quantitative functioning were taken away,
the grand jury would still serve a very valuable purpose qualitatively
for the investigation of the more serious and more sophisticated cases.
I think it has a role investigatively, even if the typical, routine
screening process were eliminated.
Mr. ISToTJiE. INIr. Allen, do you have a thought on that subject?
_ Mr. Ali.en. I agree with the judge. So far as an indictnient func-
tion, deciding on what to indict or not indict, I think the grand jury
is useless. I think the grand jury is the most j^ossible investigative tool
we have. I sponsored a bill at the last three sessions of the legislature
to eliminate the indictment function, or the screening function, and
allow the grand jury to deal strictly with investigations.
But I failed the first two times miserably, and the judge and 1
and Mr. Gersh were just deciding whether we failed the third time or
not. They did pass a bill, but it may have done more harm than good.
But, I have advocated this even before I was the State's attorney.
Charley and I used to argue all the time about the grand jury. He
I
1259
agreed with me at that time, but there was nothing you could do al)out
it because you don't have any prosecutors down at the legislature. You
have a lot of defense lawyers down there. They are adverse to almost
anything that the prosecutor wants to do to speed up the process or
make it simple for prosecutors. Because that gives them another bite
of the apple. Maj^be the grand jury will throw one case in a hundred.
It is an archaism, the grand jury system, and we don't need it for
indicting purposes. We need prosecutors who must be entrusted with
the eventual trial of that case, to look at the case and tell, give an
honest, fair, educated judgment as to Avhether the case should go to
trial or not.
Mr. NoLDE. In other words, the grand jury really is a waste of
time?
Mr. Allen. You have 23 citizens who are only there for 4 months,
and what can they tell about a case ? You can't teach them law in 4
months. A lot of lawyers have been around 24 years and still don't
knov,' the lav\-. So you are not going to teach them anything in 4
months. But, let a trained prosecutor look at that, examine the police-
men, and make a decision as to whether we should go this way or that
way or whether we shouldn't go anywhere at all. That is the modern
approach.
The grand jury is all right when you have two or three cases a month.
But we send 10,000 cases to grand jury a year in Baltimore City, and
we send 20 and 30 in a day. So all they are doing is listening to the
policemen read off a report ; "OK, indict."
Mr. NoLDE. A rubber stamp?
Mr. Allen. That is what some people call it.
Judge MoYLAN. Let me interject. This is one myth I would like
to put to rest. I don't think the grand jury is in any sense the rubber
stamp of the prosecutor. I think there is an appropriate argument
there, it seems to me, but in truth, it is probably nearly totally, in-
dependent of the prosecutor, just as prosecution minded, or even more
prosecution minded than he is. If the prosecutor wants to indict, you
can be sure the grand jury is going to indict. But I suspect it is equally
true in the case where the prosecutor would wish not to indict, the
grand jury would indict.
Mr. iVLLEN. That is true.
Judge MoYLAN. In my experience as State's attorney, there was
never an occasion we wanted an indictment we didn't get one. There
were cases when we said, "Look, we can't win these cases ; he is prob-
ably guilty but technically we can't prove it," but they didn't like his
looks or what he did, and they said, "We are going to indict him any-
way, and let the judge throw it out later on."
Or on occasion, we would go in where a policeman had made a
charge of a college student, junior or senior perhaps, with absolutely
an impeccable record, picked up for possession, not for selling mari-
huana, but for possession of a single cigarette, and you knew tliat the
act of indictment alone, whatever happened at the trial level, might
well ruin a career for the young person, and you would go in and
sometimes attempt to be compassionate with the grand jury, but the
typical grand jury did not want to hear that.
1260
I think they only seemed to be the rubber stamps. They are of com-
pletely independent motivation, as, or even more, prosecution minded
than the prosecutor himself.
Mr. NoLDE. Would you tell us how the system really developed
where the vast majority of criminal cases are heard before the court
as opposed to before the jury? Why are defense attorneys willing to
have their cases tried by the court, where in most places, the defense
attorneys feel they have a better chance before a jury ?
Judge MoYLAN. All I can say is, it is a practice, a habit, a custom,
if you will, that in terms of the reason, the reason for it is lost in the
mist of prerevolutionary history. The best tracing of it I have ever
seen was an article by the former Chief Judge Carroll Bond of the
Maryland Court of Appeals, 1925, in a decision he wrote called Ross v.
State, in that court. An article he did for the American Bar Associa-
tion Journal, and in that he traced the practice to the couT-ts of the
Lords Baltimore, the Lords Proprietor of the Palatinate Colony of
Maryland, tracing the practice all of the way back to the 1650's and
.1660's. And it has come down to this day, simply as a normal way of
doing business for prosecutors, judges, defendants, and defense"^ at-
torneys in the State of Maryland.
With the increasing awareness of the criminal law and what goes
on in criminal cases, we are seeing a slight erosion of that in the last
decade, and with the invesion of Prince Georges and Montgomery
Counties by outlanders who come to us from other parts through the
Federal city, we are seeing those two counties take on national char-
acteristics rather than traditional Maryland chai-acteristics. But it is
simply a traditional way of doing things and the Marylander who
travels abroad is indeed shocked and surprised to find out what is
going on elsewhere, just as those elsewhere are surprised at him.
I can give nothing more than historic accident or custom for the
origin of the habit.
Mr. Raxgel. Is there any relationship between the economic level of
the defendant who goes on trial by a judge alone and one who demands
and procures a jury trial ? In New York, the poor generally go before
the judge because the lawyer advises him that he can't afford a jury
trial in the time involved. Is there any connection at all ?
Judge MoTLAN. Mr. Rangel, I think there would be a slight connec-
tion, but not completelv. It was such a traditional wav of doing busi-
ness in Maryland, that I think through the 1930's, the 1940's, thel950's,
many defense attorneys representing the most affluent clients would
feel that it might be counterproductive to inflict a jury trial, which
was a rather exceptional thing until recent years, upon the system that
really was not expecting a jury trial in anything other than a capital,
rape, or first-degree murder case.
Mr. Rangel. Do you notice any differences in sentences on defend-
ants as to whether or not they were found guilty by a judge, as opposed
to those defendants that had put the State to the expense of a jury
trial?
Judge MoTLAN. No ; I don't know. In my days as State's attorney or
a young assistant State's attorney, I think one tended to look with some
surprise and a little bit of antipathy, I suspect, to an attorney who
would suddenly ask a jury trial in a routine case 10 years ago, where
nobody expected it, and I think the glares around the coui-troom by
1261
the court clerks and the prosecuting attorney and tlie policeman on
duty, might have been intended to indicate to the defense attorney,
"OK, go ahead and do this if you must, but we hope you are going to
get it when it comes time for sentencing."
But I think despite the fact in one sense the feeling or threat was
there, I think that by the time the judge actually got to the sentencing
stage he didn't really carry through with that.
I don't think it was any unifonii or overt policy of punishing the
person who took the jury trial that kept the system going. I really
think it was just that we existed from the 1650's* through the 1950's in
a little bit of isolation and it was just as natural for the Maryland
attorney to think typically of the court trial as a way to handle the
routine case, and jury trial as a rather exceptional thing.
Mr. R ANGEL. I would like to really study that because it still could
be consistent that if, traditionally, historically, there had been the feel-
ing of coercion, it really made no difference what caused the tradition.
Like you say, a good defense lawyer would feel, or should feel, obliged
to tell his client that if he did ask for a jury trial that he should expect
a more severe sentence than if he were found guilty by a judge?
Judge ]MoYLAN. I am not sure that would happen because the
one difference between Maryland and the other States is that
in most other jurisdictions, where the jury trial is the routine
rather than the exception, the election, the waiving of the jury trial, or,
as we call it, the election of the equally attractive alternative, the court
trial as opposed to the jury trial, is in most jurisdictions, tantamount
to throwing in the sponge. It is all but a guilty plea. It is a guilty plea
in everything but name only. It is throwing one's self upon the mercy
of the court.
Mr. Allen and I, on different sides of the trial table, were involved
ourselves in many hotly contested, hard- fought cases, typically fought
out before a court. Sometimes they were first-degree murder cases,
capital cases, 10 years ago, and serious enough that we would ti*y them
not before one judge alone, but ask for a panel of three judges and go
ahead for a week or 2 weeks and battle out the admissibility of con-
fession, physical evidence, the insnnity plea, and fight every step of
the way. In cases such as that I don't think there was any feeling of
intimidation that caused the court trial rather than the jury trial.
As the chief judge back in 1925, whom I never knew, of course,
pointed out : There are many cases where tactically, it might be prefer-
able to take the court trial rather than the jury trial if you had a
defense which was not a popular or meritorious' offense, but a good,
typical defense. And if you had a defendant^ who because of a record
or because he was charged with some particularly inflammatory or
inflaming type of offense, sexual exposure to young persons, the push-
ing of narcotics to teenagers, something like that, you might indeed
fare, far better with a court trial than with a jury trial.
Mr. Rangel. I assume you testified on the question of j^lea bargain-
ing. Based on our experience, not only from my own hometown but in
connection with other testimony we received, the option of a defendant
as to whether or not he goes before a court or before he goes before a
juiy deals with the question of plea bargaining. Is this accepted by the
district attorney's office with defendants if they plead guilty to a lesser
offense? .
1262
Judge MoYLAisr. As I was indicating this morning, another one of
the things that is unique about the rather quaint "Free State," I sup-
pose, is we have never had to rely upon plea bargaining nearly to the
extent that the 49 other States have.
Mr. Rangel. Wliat percentage of your criminal cases are disposed of
without a trial ?
Judge MoYLAN. Very few. I was the predecessor of Mr. Allen in
office, and my last year in office I did a survey — from 1952 to 1969. In
that IT-year period, involving some hundreds of thousands of cases,
we went to trial on 86 percent of the cases and 14 percent were dis-
posed of by guilty pleas. And even in that 14 percent, they did not
represent significantly negotiated pleas, but simply the guilty pleas
that came either because you had convicted a person of three armed
robberies, and there was no sense taking to the trial table the three to
four remaining armed robberies.
Mr. Rangel. Have any studies been made as to why — is this true
throughout the State of Maryland ?
Mr. Allen. In most of the State.
Judge MoYLAN. It is true in the State of Maryland except for the
suburban Washington counties, which by virtue of the Federal City,
are taking on more of the typically national characteristics rather than
the traditional Maryland characteristic. The only studies I am aware
of are, really, historically, the 1925 article by the then Chief Judge
Carroll Bond. Also, his decision in a case called Ros8 v. State in that
same year, 177 Maryland 577, where he traced the histor}-.
What I am plagiarizing from at the moment is my own decision of
about a month ago, in which I repeat and amplify that history and
tradition, bringing it up to date, particularly based on my own sta-
tistics that I gathered as State's attorney, plus one very brief article —
and, again, I am guilty of payola, quoting myself — that was printed
in the Nebraska, 17, the Nebraska State Bar Journal, 138, a 1968 article
called : "Trial of Criminal Cases Before the Court Without a Jury."
Mr. Rangel. Is your statement in the record ?
Judge MoYLAN. No ; it is not, although I would be glad to furnish
this opinion, which is irrelevant in 60-percent part, and perhaps rele-
vant in 40-percent part.
Mr. Rangel. Thank you, Judge.
[The material referred to had not been received at time of printing.]
Mr. Allen. I wanted to say something in answer to Mr. Rangel'S
question.
Actually, Maryland is a very peculiar State, Mr. Rangel, and plea
bargaining in Baltimore City is really different from the plea bargain-
ing as we know it around the country. People plead guilty, but it is
not necessarily plea bargaining as we know it around the country. I
would guess that our pleas are maybe 10 to 15 percent of all of our
cases. We try most of our cases.
Mr. Rangel. To get rid of the semantics, what incentives would a
person have to plead guilty, when at least, according to tradition, he
had the option to go before a judge ?
Mr. Allen. If he pleads guilty, maybe he had several cases and he
pleads guilty in one, several robbery indictments. Now, that might be
called a plea bargain but when we plead down from robbery to, let's
say, an assault, the kind of plea bargaining we are always talking about.
1263
he might be guilty in two cases, where we know he is going to get more
than 40 years anyhow, and we might accept that as a plea bargain.
They are plea bargains but they are kind of hard bargains. While he
might plead guilty to second-degree murder, where we secretly feel
that it is probably a good second-degree case, but it might get man-
slaughter if we tried it, and the defense attorney secretly feels he
knows it is second degree, but he feels it might be first degree if it is
tried. So, we parlay a bit and call that plea bargaining.
Mr. Rangel. That is why I must read the traditions of Maryland.
It seems to me we had some judges who said they don't make deals, and
if you question them long enough, excluding the witnesses here today,
you can find the defendant can walk away with his own feeling in
terms of sentence. It is a lot easier for him to plead guilty rather than
go to trial. Traditionally, the defendants don't go to trial, they have
that option where they may walk away with no sentence.
If I walked in the district attorney's office and you said a hard bar-
gain, minimum 40 years, it seems like I would be obligated to demand
a jury trial.
Mr. Allen. It depends on the charge. If a man has five armed rob-
beries and we have him cold and he can get 100 years, 40 years might
not be so bad.
Mr. Rangel. It is a different jurisdiction.
]Mr. Allen. It is different. We claim we don't plead in self-defense
because we have to do it, we are forced to do it because we try our cases.
When we take a plea the man can either plead or try his case and it
might be to his advantage to plead.
Mr. Gersh. It might be interesting for you to know, in Baltimore
that is not a policy. We will plea bargain with an attorney from
strength when he comes to iis and ask for a plea. We do not look for
the attorney then to plea bargain and we prepare every case for trial.
I would say that where pleas are entered, probably the majority of
those pleas are entered at the trial table, when we sit there and are
ready to go and the man wants to enter a plea.
When we accept a plea it is generally because we know the weak-
nesses in the case, or because the man is pleading to the first count of the
indictment, or because there are other cases pending that, in our
opinion, it would not be practical to try. But this is the difference be-
tween our jurisdiction and other jurisdictions.
I think the basic reason is because of the lack of the jury trial.
Because, in the lack of the jury trial, we can try a case. In Baltimore
City last year, we disposed of approximately 6,000 felony cases and
35,000 misdemeanor cases at the trial table. And when we talk about
misdemeanor cases in Baltimore City, we don't talk about cases that
in other jurisdictions call for 6 months or a maximum 1-year penalty.
We talk about cases that are misdemeanor by classification of statute,
but sentencing may be very high.
All narcotic cases in Maryland, with the exception of distribution
and manufacturing, are misdemeanors and are punishable by first-
time offense of 4 years. But they are disposed of as a misdemeanor
trial. A fault which carries quite a high penalty, a common law pen-
alty, is a misdemeanor. So, we are talking about a different type of
animal when we talk about plea bargaining and trials in other
jurisdictions.
95-13S — 73— pt. 3 20
1264
Mr. R ANGEL. You probably have something else going for you in
terms of tradition that most jurisdictions that have a very high degree
of plea bargaining don't have. You find police have a tendency to
overstate their case and the district attorneys' offices have a tendency
to overindict, so like labor and management, they can reach some kind
of negotiations.
Mr. Allen. We are trying to develop a realistic system, charge a
man with what you can prove and go ahead and try. That is what we
are aiming for and maybe by the time I am out of office we will have
achieved that. Charge a man with what you can prove and go ahead
and do it.
Judge MoYT^AN. I know, as bizarre as we must seem to other parts
of the country, Mr. Allen's initial reaction parallels mine of a few
years earlier, that we sort of looked upon the rest of the country as
bizarre. Shortly after I became State's attorney I traveled up to New
York City to really, in a sense, learn from the masters. At that point,
Frank Hogan's office was the direct successor of Tom Dewey, and was
looked upon around the country as tlie "Garden of Eden" of prose-
cutors. And when I got up there and learned, not only in the county
of New York but in the other boroughs, as well, indeed throughout
the State of New York, and I later learned it was epidemic through-
out the country, that 97-98 percent of the cases were disposed of,
bargained cases, not from 40-year sentence felonies down to 20, but
all the way down to simple assault cases. I came home on the train
then feeling if we ever did in Baltimore what was done in the best
office in the country we would be impeached and ridden out of town
on a rail within a month.
Mr. Ranoel. We don't have vour high tradition.
Mr. NoLDE. Judge, should a judge participate in plea bargaining,
or should he stay out of it ?
Judge IMoYLAN. Let me confess ignorance. I went from the prose-
cutor's office immediately to the appellate bench and never spent a
a day of my life on the trial bench. It would be presumptuous.
Mr. Allen. The judges are split on it, and they argue very vig-
orously about ther relative positions. There is one faction on our
bench that says the judge has nothing to do with it, and another fac-
tion says equally strongly he must participate if he is going to make
an intelligent decision.
Mr. Rangel. Another faction says : "I assume all of the responsibil-
ity, but I don't know anything about it."
Mr. Allen. That is right. I don't know the answer, frankly.
Mr. Nolde. Mr. Allen, what problems do you have hiring and pay-
ing assistants?
]\Ir. Allen. I don't have any problems in hiring. I can get all kinds
of people, but I only pay $10,800, and they are willing to come but
they aren't willing to stay for what I can pay them. After they get
in their 18 months or a year and learn their way around, and find
they can't go far, because I don't have a lot of well-paying jobs.
Mr. Gersh heads an entire program that is the first in the coimtry,
and until very recently we paid $18,000 a year. Until very recently.
You simply can't hold good people at that salary scale. The majority
of my people get from $15,000 down. I guess maybe 50 percent get
$10,800 up to $14,000. Of course, when they get in that area they are
1265
there about 2 yeni^s and they really are good prosecutors where they
get started in their prosecuting career and they leave.
What I am doing there, instead of prosecuting cases, I am training
lawyers for the bar. Charley did that for many years. He had the
same problem. It is like pulling teeth to get the city administration
to understand that if they want a strong law enforcement system,
they must, first of all, have sti'ong prosecutors ; and you have to have
pros. I have a few pros on my staff, but there are only about 20. I
should have about 60 so that we can handle cases promptly.
We lose cases every now and then, 1 am sure, because of inexperi-
ence. Because we have to face, let's say, the public defender's office
that tries 40 percent of the cases. I have to send my men against
people with maybe 5 or 6 more years experience, maybe 10 years more
experience, and who make $7,000 or $8,000 more a year working part
time.
So the image of the prosecutor's office as a training ground for the
bar has to be changed, because the situation is entirely different than
it was 10 years ago. Entirely different. It is a professional thing, and
you can no longer sit there and let the police tell their story, you tell
your story, we rest our case. You can't do that any more. It is a com-
plicated, highly technical, very professional operation, extremely dif-
ficult. And with the police reactions to many of the cases, it is even
more difficult. It is hard as the devil to try a case without a lineup.
You have to really maneuver around.
It is hard trying cases before the new computer juries. I call them
television juries because they have been imbued with Raymond Burr
and Owen Marshall, and they see the prosecutor going out and gather-
ing all of this evidence, fingerprints, guns, and so on, and they come
into court and re-present the identification witness who saw the crime
and they want to know, "T\niere is the gun; where are the finger-
prints?" You have to learn to try cases all over again before the tele-
vision jury. You have to explain to them why jo\i don't have a gun or
fingerprints and why they should believe certain witnesses and so on.
It is a new ballgame with a modern jury. You have to have a dif-
ferent type of prosecutor if you want to have successful prosecution.
I said this morning that I view the prosecutor's office as a key to the
justice system. He is the man who determines what cases come up and
what people end up going to jail, very often. You have to have a
strong man there. You can't have these kids who are fresh out of law
school trying to learn how to practice law.
Mr. Rj^^NGEL. What percentage of your criminal cases are minority
members ?
Mr. Allex. Very, very large. I would say in the felony level, 85
percent : misdemeanor level, maybe 60 percent.
Mr. Rangel. What percentage of your district attorney's staff,
which enjoys more of a quasi-judicial function than most jurisdiction,
would be minority members ?
Mr. Allen. Of my prosecutors, I have only five or six black
prosecutors.
Mr. Raxgel. Out of what ?
Mr. Allen. Out of 86. 1 think I have six.
Mr. Rangel. Do you have an affirmative action program ?
1266
Mr. Allen. Yes, I have an affirmative action program. I don't know
if we have the first or not. First of all, we don't have verj^ many black
lawyers around.
Mr. Rangel. Not for $10,000 a year.
Mr. Allen. I can get white lawyers but not black lawyers for that
much.
Mr. Rangel. They can afford the luxury of getting experience
sometimes.
Mr. Allen. Maybe that is it. There is another thing with young
black lawyers, and I almost had a fistfight in Atlanta about this. I was
in a roomful of young black lawyers telling them how valuable it is,
if they want fairness, to go in the prosecutor's office if they want to
do something for the unfairness visited upon black defendants. I
finally won the argument, convinced them, but their initial approach
was: "I am not going to take any part in putting black folks in jail."
Inevitably, that is what I hear from young black lawyers.
But if you talk to them for 5 minutes and they realize that if they
really want to be fair and contribute something to prevent that sort
of thing, the place to be is in the prosecutor's office. I tell them, as a
defense lawyer, how long is it going to take you to right the wrong
of one defendant. Maybe 2 or 3 years. I can right the wrong in 2 min-
utes because I don't have to try a case where a man is improperly
charged. I can exercise my discretion. I can free more people who were
wrongly charged, or improperly search pd, or improperly arrested in 5
minutes than I could in 20 years as a lawyer.
Mr. Rangel. I can't agree with you more, but it seems as though
with your tradition of lacking a jury trial, I would expect to at
least find a wider segment of the population participating. It has been
my problem in representing Harlem and East Harlem, the greatest
difficulty between the defendant and the police officers, representing
the so-called establishment is a question of the mores or the traditions
of a particular conmiunity. What may look like a crime by someone
who is not familiar with that community may indeed be just people
exchanging greetings in another community.
But the problem of recruiting minority groups in the area of law
enforcement, at least in the city of New York and other major cities,
has been the fact the private sector for the first time has offered more
opportunity, and certainly the opportunity to enter at a higher income.
Mr, Allen. The economic aspect is probably one of the real reasons,
rather than the pliilosophical outlook. I remember when I first came
in office, I made a very strong bid for a lot of the black lawyers around
town who just recently came out of school. I must have had 50 appli-
cations from yoimg whites who wanted to apply. They were just flood-
ing the office. I sent for a couple of fellows I knew who came out and
one young man came in. We were offering $10,800 of course, and I
asked liim what about salary. He said, "I have to have at least $20,000
to start." I said, "I hardly get more than $20,000 myself." That was
the attitude.
They are being offered these nice opportunities in the big firms and
they are taking them. Of course, in Baltimore, you only have about 40
black lawyers. They can make so much money outside — and money is
the thing. If they are interested in money they are not going to come
into the prosecutor's office.
1267
Judge MoYLAN. I experienced the same thing, frankly, even in gov-
ernmental ranks. Competition is almost cut throat to the point we were
wooing a young black lawyer about a year before he was ready to
graduate from law school, also a high school senior who is a good
i)asketball player is being wooed, because you had an attorney general's
staff of 80-some people that were falling over backward not to appear
lilly-wliite or almost so. You had the State attorney's office of 70; the
State solicitor's office of 60; and local U.S. attorney's office, and the
wining and dining and recruiting was really pretty bad and those who
turned out to be the lowest in the ability to pay on the totem pole really
were left at the church door.
Mr. Raxgel. As the one black member of the Crime Committee, I
integrated the whole committee.
Mr. Allen. Mr. Ranirel. a vomig man from vour State, named
David Mitchell, a very bright young lawyer, I practically shanghaied
him into my office because I brought liim here from New York as a
student ancl paid him a tremendous salaiy in my office when I was
practicing. Of course, when I went over to the State attorney's office,
I sort of demanded he come with me. He came and has been a very good
prosecutor and has lived there about 2 years. He told me the other
day he was going to the public defender's office, Friday of this week,
in fact. He is developing into a line lawyer, but he is leaving because
he is making about $18,000 and he can go over across the street and
make $19,000 and practice law, which he can't do with me.
Another one I shanghaied was Michael Mitchell, Congressman
]Mit<:hell's nephew. He has been there and I tried to extract a promise
from him a week or so ago that he was going to stay, but he is a real
bright, sharp young man and they are 1:rying to get him. The public
defender is after him. and this person is after lum, and so on.
But good lawyers are in demand. They are going to take him away,
particularly, if the man doesn't have means of his own.
Mr. Rangel. I would like to apologize to the distinguished panel.
It is very unusual so many committees are holding meetings today.
Most of us sit on the Judiciaiy Committee and we had meetings of the
Judiciary Committee, the District Committee, annd others
I would also like to introduce the SICA training group from East
Harlem, a group very active in New York, who are here to learn what
makes Government tick. I don't believe they could have picked a better
day to listen to the problems other cities have, and maybe realize that
New York is not alone and may be even a little further ahead in
solving some of its problems.
Mr. NoLDE. Would you please tell the committee why you gave up
a lucrative private law practice to become embroiled in all of the prob-
lems confronting a State's attorney ?
Mr. Allex. I was .o2 years old and my children were grown and
I guess you get a little community spirit somewhere in your life. I
frankly felt at that time, and I still feel, I could make a substantial
contribution.
I wasn't contributing anything as a defense lawyer. I was very well
known and made a lot of money, but making money, of course, is
not the prime m^ovor in everybody's life. Certainly not in mine.
If I have 4 years or get reelected and have 8 years, and can have
people talking about the Baltimore office like they talk alK)ut
1268
William Cahalan's office in Detroit, that would be a liiige success in
my mind. I mean, if I go clown in history as a good prosecutor, or one
of the best prosecutors of Baltimore City, as a top prosecutor's office,
then tliat would mean something.
To be a lawyer; that is not a tremendous achievement to be a good
lawyer. Charlie was a good lawyer. I think it is a question of personal
pride and my desire to try to make a substantial mark in Baltimore.
I think prosecution is a neglected field of activity. I think making
enough noise about it might move it a little bit. I am the only Black
pi'osecutoi" in the country, so they look at me when I say things. I may
get a little iiiore attentiion than Charlie did. Charlie did a good job
while he was there, but he was one out of many complaining about the
thing. Maybe they will pay a little more attention to me. I think they are
paying a little attention already.
Mr. NoLDE. I think the veiy fact you are here so indicates.
Mr. Allen. I have done two things I think are worthwhile and
I have m}^ eye on a couple of other things I would like to do. and
there is a good chance I will get a major fraud unit, which will get
me into white-collar crime and organized crime, and I will have
another fight on that, but I am going to get it. I think this is the type
of thing that will eventually bring the office up to par.
I think maybe after awhile I will get some salary adjustments. But
if the Federal Government will come along and set minimum stand-
ards for these various offices around the counti-y and professionalize
the offices, and I contribute just a little bit, just a little thought, I will
think I have achieved something.
When I was in the latter yeai'S of my practice, I was constantly in
contact with Charlie Moylan about this type of thing. I was a great
letter writer and used to write long letters to him about practices.
and so on. I thinlv I even made a report to one of the bar associations
about how the State attorney's office could be improved. And Charlie,
I always accused Cliarlie of adopting some of my suggestions. I don"t
know whether he did or not.
Judge MoYLAN. Many of them.
Mr. Allen. I made a lot of suggestions.
Mr. NoLDE. Now you have a chance to put them in efTect.
Mr. Allen. All that I made, Charlie adopted before I got into office.
I probably never will be rich, and being rich doesn't really bother me
a great deal. I have three grown children, and grandchildren, and
I am happih^ married, and I have a nice home and I don't need a lot
of dough. So I think I am doing something.
I am very happy with my job, but it is the hardest job I had in
my life, frankly.
Mr. XoLDE. I think you are rich in accomplishments and we are
pleased you could come,' Mr. Allen and Judge IMoylan. We found your
thoughts provocative, your ideas excellent, and we are just delighted
the committee could have the benefit of your great experience and
great work.
We thank you again for coming.
Mr. Allen. Thank you very much. We are glad to have been here.
1269
[The following material, from Mr. Allen and Judge Moylan, was
received for the record :]
Prep ABED Statement of Milton B. Allen, State's Attorney foe Baltimore
City, Baltimore, Md.
The very composition of this hearing and its stated purpose is the best illus-
tration I know of the problem of street crime. A select committee of our highest
legislative body has elected to hear witnesses that may give some guidance to
w"hat, if anything, can be done to put the brakes on a runaway crime problem.
We simply can't think of street crime in isolation as if we could come up
with a magic cure like social penicillin. We are looking at street crime from a
viewpoint similar to that held by those who claim more laws, more policemen,
tougher judges, and longer prison terms will bring a simple, direct end to
America's crime problem.
Open defiance of the law, which manifests itself as street crime, is inex-
tricably intertwined with interrelated problems, such as the inability of society to
cope wi th crime. Obviously, the ease with which street crime can be committed
and the high likelihood of never being caught, is a crime contributing factor. The
inefficiency of many court systems and the difficulty of proving guilt must
certainly be another contributing factor.
The prosecutor system, by which most often part-time, youthful, inexperienced,
politically active prosecutors are given the awesome responsibility of operating
prosecution offices and the fact that it is much easier to simply go along with the
existing systems and become case processors instead of prosecutors is certainly
a contributing factor.
A prison system that usually turns out a much more highly skilled criminal
than it takes in, has got to be a strong contributing factor.
The basic unfairness of the American justice system, in which the have-nots
supply the criminal caseloads, while we hardly have machinery to deal with
the thinking criminal, must be a strong contributing factor.
The overly complicated criminal justice system, which we brought on ourselves
by a series of decisions forced out of the Supreme Court by the activity of over-
bearing police action, spineless prosecutors and insensitive judges, must also be
a part of the pattern.
The smallness of our Nation, as created by modern communication and travel
by which a kid in California's ghetto instantly learns of an inciting incident in
New York, or a Washington youngster instantly learns of the details of a rip-off
in California, adds to the problem.
The virtual disappearance of State and county lines which makes even a perfect
system in one area no solution to the nationwide problem, as the criminal simply
transfers his activities, contributes.
The inability of the States to cope with organized crime, white collar crime,
consumer fraud, and ecological crime, also contributes.
The lack of integrity at the top level of governments and appeals to racism
and basic fears of our citizens by our Nation's leaders.
So there are no simple solutions, no quick answers. There are good ideas and
good plans whereby one community or State can come up with a good system
to affect one particular area of criminal activity. Such ideas or plans of attack,
I will discuss today.
In Baltimore about a year ago, I started a homicide liaison unit, which grew
into a liaison for violent crimes unit, LEAA financed, about September. This is
a system by which an experienced prosecutor associates himself with a serious
case early on. The case is processed with a view toward successful and proper
prosecution. Too often cases are ended witli a successful arrest, the successful
prosecution being the State's attorney's or prosecutor's problem. Police have had
difficulty adjusting to the series of cases regarding confessions, search and
seizure, eye-witness identification, that came dovm in recent years. Getting
lawyers to line-ups and what to do after a defendant says, "I want my lawyer
here before I talk," have proven difficult burdens.
The liaison prosecutors are able to supervise witness statements, coordinate
search and seizure warrants, give immunity, arrange for appearance before
1270
grand jury, arrange for depositions, arrange for bail, deal with witnesses and
lawyers in pending cases, and generally to create a prosecutable case at the
initial stage. It is also able to furnish protection to the legally or factually
innocent at an early stage, something I insist upon, but is often overlooked
somehow in some systems, as I feel that nothing harms the system more than
an unsuccessful prosecution and nothing helps it more than a fast, well-planned,
proper and succcessful prosecution.
The system works. The police like it. And the prosecutors like it. It's fair,
practical and has the potential for building respect for law and order with
justice.
I can cite you some examples of how the unit works to illustrate its effective-
ness, bearing in mind, of course, that there is some contribution in every case
that makes a good case into a perfect case and hopeless case into a good case,
or removes the finger of suspicion from an innocent person.
Case No. 1. — A mnrder-for-hire ring existed in Baltimore, dispatching unpop-
ular people for a fee of $600 to $1,500. The police knew who they were but could
never come up with quite enough to arrest. The liaison imit worked with the
homicide unit and developed a strategy. They worked on the contact man between
the killers and the hirers. The contact man cracked, he went before the grand
jury, the two killers were arrested and jailed and in 29 days we had a conviction.
Working in similar fashion, using immunity in the grand jury, the homicide
unit was able to validly make a mass arrest and valid search that revealed the
following : Several escaped murders.
Case No. 2. — The solution to an absolutely clueless murder of a security guard.
Case No. S. — The double contract murder in New York, involving a narcotics
transaction.
Case No. 4- — ^ quite efiicient narcotics operation hitherto unknown to the
police that operated between New York and Baltimore.
The same approach, immunity in the grand jury, was used to furnish the
answer to an unsolved witness murder that had run into a blank wall 8 or 9
months before. An extra dividend, entirely unexpected, was a final answer to
what has become kno^Ti as "Baltimore's missing heroin case."
These small successes simply illustrate the wisdom of the police and pros-
ecutors cooperatively together in one confined area. It illustrates further the
immense possibility of getting professional prosecutors involved in case prepar-
ation at an early stage, rather than several months after the fact when it Is
too late to deal with impoi'tant questions of witness cooperation, identification,
immunity and the sufiiciency of evidence to arest and suflSciency of evidence
to convict.
In our fingering-pointing society, too often arrest figures assume too much
importance, but every arrest for a major crime without conviction diminishes
our ability to demand respect for law enforcement.
I have another unit built along similar lines and a similar theory, the narcotics
strike force. As far as I could determine, it is the first successful effort at a State
level Narcotics Strike Force in the Nation. We operate a hot line, advise police
on warrants, gather intelligence, cooperate with law enforcement units all over
the country and operate legal telephone taps.
We have had numerous inquiries from all over the country about both these
units. A group from Indiana came to Baltimore recently to examine our Strike
Force and Mr. Gersh. my Chief of the Liaison Unit, who is with us here today,
has been asked to expound on the theory of the liaison of violent crimes unit
in the Notre Dame Lawyer.
I am frankly surprised at this reaction because it would seem to me, as an
outsider, that this is something we should have been doing in prosecution many,
years ago and the theory of handling a criminal case from the prosecution point
of view, and early involvement of the prosecutor seems to be something that
should have been done much, much earlier in the growth of our system.
I f rnst this is not another committee to examine the crime picture, have various
witnesses quoted liiierally in the media, and end up recommending the passage of
more laws, giving more penalties for more offenses. Passing laws will not affect
the crime picture one iota. We already have more laws than we can possibly
deal with. Proper law enforcement is what affects crime. Proper means efiicient,
quick, effective and equal. Proper means giving the police prosecutorial help.
I beseech the committee, in addition to recommending innovative approaches
to the solution of crime, that they face the hard fact that most States do not have
the proper orientation, interest or financial means to properly combat crime.
1271
Many States have good police systems but the uutraiued police force far out-
numbers the well trained. Some cities have professionalized their prosecutors
and at least one State, New Jersey, has professionalized the entire State system
but for the most part, the average prosecutor is too young, inexperienced, part-
time, under paid, over worked, who quickly moves on to greener pastures. Help
from the Federal soui-ces in direction, minimum standards and funding, must
come to create a uniform, realistic, fair system nation-wide. Instead of recom-
mending new and tougher laws, I trust the committee will consider the following :
1. Minimum standards for the court systems. Eliminate the magistrates and
justice of the peace system in all the States with a unified three-level court
system, similar to the one in Maryland.
2. Minimum standards for the police. Require a minimum training period,
an in-service training for all police, not just the big cities or the elite units.
3. Minimum standards for the prosecutors, directed and designed to eliminate
the part-time prosecutors and replace them with full-time lawyers, with the
chief prosecutor being selected at the skill level of a circuit court judge. In
this manner, the public would be able to receive representation equal to that
of the criminal defendant.
4. Acknowledgment of the necessity for a new approach in case preparation
with the police-prosecutor units with adequate staff.
5. Acknowledgment that new case law must be implemented and adjusted
to. while new statute law should not be passed unless there is implementation
provided.
Attachment :(1).
(Attachment 1)
Pbogeess Report of the Violent Crimes Liaison Unit of the State's
Attorney's Office for the City of Baltimore
background
The Violent Crimes Liaison Unit of the State's Attorney's OflSce for the City of
Baltimore began its operation in July, 1972.
On that date, Howard B. Gresh was appointed Project Director and three ad-
ditional Assistant State's Attorneys were recruited. Since it was necessary to
assign experienced prosecutors to this Division, three Assistant State's Attorneys
were recruited from the Trial Division of the State's Attorney's Office.
Because of prior trial commitments and vacations, etc., this Division did not be-
come operational until September 5, 1972. Certain problems became apparent im-
mediately and new systems had to be developed in order to attempt to follow the
guidelines set out in the Grant.
The first apparent problem was meeting the Grant condition of setting trial
dates within sixty days of arrest. At the inception of this Program. Court Doc-
kets seemed to be firm for approximately ninety days in the future and it was
impossible to have trial dates within the time specified.
On September 26, 1972 a system was devised with the Criminal Assignment
Office of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, which allowed this Unit to reserve
trial dates and, therefore, attempt to schedule all trials within sixty days of
arrest. A copy of the memo setting up this Procedure is attached, hereto, and
marked Exhibit 1.
Shortly after this Procedure was instituted, another problem became apparent.
This second problem involved the Defendant obtaining a lawyer within the "sixty-
day period" and, of course, without the Defendant being represented, it became
impossible for trials to be set in within the .said "sixty-day period". Shortly
thereafter, the Public Defender in consultation with the Chief of Violent Crimes
Liaison Unit worked out a plan whereby all cases emanating from this Unit
were set in for immediate arraignment.
Prior to the set arraignment, the Public Defender was supplied a copy of the
offense report and, thereby, was able to make a proper determination of his case
and appoint counsel at a much earlier date than normal. Once again, as the new
Unit became operational, further problems were encountered.
The next problem encountered also involved the early setting of trial dates.
It was found that the police officers necessary for Grand Jury testimony because
of other trial dates, conflicting schedules, rotating work schedules and other
problems, would sometimes delay the presenting of the case to the Grand Jury
for such a substantial period of time that once again, it became impossible to
work within the "sixty-day guidt-line". As soon as this problem became notice-
1272
able, a meeting between the Captain of the Homicide Squad of the Baltimore City
Police Department and the Chief of the Violent Crimes Liaison Unit was set up
and a new Procedure was instituted. Under this new Procedure, the Assistants
in the Violent Crimes Liaison Unit began presenting cases without the oflBcer
if necessary to the Grand Jury and all cases began to be presented in the Grand
Jury within five days after arrest.
Shortly, thereafter, as in all new procedures, further difficulties were en-
countered. It soon became apparent that the reservation of trial dates for cases
emanating from this Unit were not sufficient to keep up with the amount of cases
this Unit was handling. Under the original Procedure, (two cases per week were
reserved by this Unit with Criminal Assignment and within a short period of
time, all trial dates within the "sixty day period" were filled.)
On November 22, 1972 a check of the Criminal Assignment Office indicated
that the first available reserve date was February 20, 1973. A period well in excess
of the "sixty-day rule". Immediately after discovering this the Criminal Assign-
ment Commissioner authorized additional reserved trial dates, being made avail-
able to this Unit.
In order to comply with the guideline of the Grant in providing twenty-four
hour police coverage, it was, of course, immediately known that a Unit consisting
of four men and no secretarial or administrative help could not supply physical
coverage on a twenty-four hour basis to the Police Department. Therefore, a
schedule was set up supplying normal daylight coverage and "on call coverage"
for the Police Department at other hours. A copy of the sample schedule for
September, 1972 is attached, hereto, and entitled Exhihit 2.
Because of the speedy trial objective of cases emanating from this Unit,
special red files were ordered and all cases from the Violent Crimes Liaison
Unit are inserted into a bright red file folder to call attention to all Assistant
State's Attorneys handling a red file ; that it is a special file which must have
special handling.
A statistics form was devised, which is inserted into each file, and any Assist-
ant State's Attorney handling a "red file" must fill in the appropriate informa-
tion on the form ; a copy of said form is attached, hereto, and entitled Exhibit S.
OBJECTIVES
The basic objectives of the Violent Crimes Liaison Unit is to provide extensive
cooperation and coordination between the Baltimore City Police Department and
the State's Attorney's Office for the City of Baltimore.
It has been agreed that the personnel of this Unit shall not become involved
in the investigation of any Homicide unless requested by the officer in charge of
the investigation ; but it must be noted, however, that the degree of cooperation
between the Police Department and this Unit has been extremely high and co-
operation has been requested to this date in the overwhelming majority of Homi-
cide cases. The home telephone numbers of all Assistant State's Attorneys in
this Unit have been provided to the Police Department in order for the officer re-
questing assistance to be able to quickly be in touch with the Assistant. As of this
date, police officers have been using the home telephone numbers and contacting
the Assistants when necessary.
The second objective of speedy trial is in the process of being attained by the
following steps :
1. A special color file has been designed for cases handled by this Unit, so
that any Assistant working on this file immediately knows this is a priority file.
2. The A^iolent Crimes Liaison Unit Assistant is responsible for the presenta-
tion of all cases to the Grand Jury, to insure a speedy indictment.
3. All crimes which this Unit has jurisdiction over are "specialed" to the
Grand Jury by an Assistant to avoid the lengthy process through District Court.
4. The Public Defender is notified immediately upon indictment of any Defend-
ant ^'"r a crime ]>eing ]irocessed by this Unit, so that the Public Defender may
enter his appearance speedily and without arraignment, if possible.
5. Assistants preparing cases for trial are instructed that cases from this
Unit receive top priority.
6. It is the policy of this Unit to resist postponements in cases assigned to
this Unit, except imder the most unusual circumstances.
1273
PERFORMANCE
At this stage, because of the shortness of time that this Unit has been in
existence, it would be impracticable to quote statistical data. It is, however,
.significant to point out some individual cases where the performance of this
Unit has resulted in unusual and extremely advantageous results.
Case No. 1
During early August, 1972 a series of armed robberies throughout the City of
Baltimore took place by an extremely violence-prone gang who were immediately
nicknamed "Bonnie and Clyde".
The Police Department on August 17, 1972 arrested one Charlene Hopkins and
immediately ascertained that she was involved with these series of armed rob-
beries, etc. Police Officers immediately contacted this Unit and arrangements
wei-e made for Assistant State's Attorneys from the Violent Crimes Liaison
Unit, along with police officers, to interrogate the female Defendant. As the result
of the interrogation, sixteen armed robberies, two Homicides and sixty-five
burglaries were cleared. Ten separate Defendants were arrested and trials are
pending at this time. A copy of an article which appeared in the News American
Newspaper is attached, hereto, and entitled ExhiMt 4-
Case No. 2
On October 2, 1972, Eugene "Tank" Allen was arrested by members of the
Baltimore City Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in
Baltimore City ; at that time, Mr. Allen was wanted by the State of Maryland for
the crimes of escape and armed robbery. As a result of his arrest, this Unit was
contacted by the Baltimore City Police Department and an Assistant was imme-
diately dispatched and became involved in the interrogation of Mr. Allen. A direct
result of the interrogation of Mr. Allen was information leading to the charge of
homicide against one Hercules Williams for the murder of one Alonzo Alston
on .July 27, 1972. Defendant Williams was no stranger to the Prosecutor's Office
in Baltimore City, as he had been tried for homicide several times prior hereto,
and in each and every case he had been found Not Guilty. In several of the cases
against Mr. Williams prior to the instant case, the witnesses had been killed or
intimidated.
As a result of interrogation in this case and the speedy work of the Assistants
of this Unit, immediate steps were taken to insure the preserving of testimony
against Mr. Williams. A deposition was scheduled and taken in open Court on
Octo'oer 13, 1972, thereby, preserving the testimony of a material witness who
had been threatened. This witness was also secreted in a motel with the expense
being paid by this Office to j^revent any further intimidations or violence upon
her. The case of Hercules Williams was scheduled for trial on November 1.3.
1972 (twenty-nine days after his indictment) and a conviction was gained on the
first count of an indictment for murder and the fir.st count of an indictment of
conspiracy to commit murder.
This Unit assisted the Trial Division of the State's Attorney's Office and the
re.sults became obvious. A copy of the Motions, Affidavits, Stipulations and Order
are attached, hereto, and entitled Exhi'bit 5.
Case No. 3
On October 23, 1972, one Goetz Dietrich Breynk was arrested by the Baltimore
Citv Police Department, Homicide Squad for the murder of his wife, Viola
Brevnk, aboard the motor .ship, Hagen ; a German Flag Ship which was in the
Port of Baltimore. One of the Assistants assigned to this Unit investigated this
case along with Homicide Detectives and it was ascertained that all of the
witnesses, the Defendant and the victim were German Nationales.
Our Assistant in this case immediately researched the law and ascertained
that the .iurisdiction of the prosecution of this case could have been in the State
Courts, the Federal District Court or in the home port of the ship (Germany). It
was immediately a.scertained that since all witnesses and all parties to the crime
were German Nationales. no purpose would be served by trying this case in the
Citv of Baltimore and burdening the taxpayers of this State with the expensive
task of trving. convicting and imprisoning the Defendant. The following inter-
national agencies were immediately contacted : Interpol ; the District Attorney's
1274
Office, Hamburg, Germany ; the Gei'man Consulate in Philadelphia and the
United States Treasury Department. These agencies were contacted in addition
to the Baltimore City Police Department, the State's Attorney's Office in Balti-
more City and the Hamburg, Germany Police Department. As a result of nego-
tiations between the various agencies, the Supervising District Attorney of
Hamburg, Germany, W. Richter, obtained a warrant of arrest issued in the
District Court of Hamburg, Germany before the Honorable Judge KoUwitz. On
December 6, 1972 two German Police Officers arrived at Friendship Airport.
Baltimore, Maryland, where they were met by Baltimore City Police Department
Detectives and arrangements were made to transport the prisoner back to
Germany, thereby, saving the taxpayers for the City of Baltimore, approxi-
mately $100,000.
It must be noted that the entire Grant for this Unit for the first calendar year
was approximately $100,000 and this case (Case number 3), resulted in savings
to the taxpayers of this State of more than that amount of money.
In addition to the above details, arrangements were made by this Office with
the Sky Marshals, the New York City Detectives Bureau, Friendship Airport
Security and John F. Kennedy Security in New York for the proper security
for this prisoner to be transported back to Germany. Copies of correspondence
from Interpol, the District Attorney's Office. Hamburg, Germany and warrants
of arrest are attached, hereto, and entitled Exhibit 6.
In addition to the above cases which have been listed as examples of the work
this Unit is doing, the Assistants assigned to this Unit have been involved in
such things as death-bed confessions, drafting of .search warrants for police,
attending line-ups, advising police on the law in applicable situations and many
other unusual situations.
SUMMARY
The experience of the past few months in operating this Unit would seem to
indicate that the future of the Violent Crimes Liaison Unit is bright. As the result
of the ever increasing complexities which the police officer must face, the assist-
ance available to him by trained lawyers is a necessary tool.
There is, at this time, a pending application for additional Assistants and
secretarial help to expand this Unit. It would seem that the elTectivenes_s of this
type program could be increased many fold by providing Assistant State's Attor-
neys around the clock physically on the premises of the Police Department. At
this time. Assistants are available on call twenty-four hours a day, but this is
not the best type of procedure.
There is certainly a definite need for secretarial and administrative manpower
which the present Grant does not allow. In spite of some of the problems listed
above and further, in spite of the shortage of manpower, there is no question
as to the success of this Unit in the short time it has been working.
[The exhibits referred to were retained in the committee files.]
(Excerpt from a recent opinion bv Jndffe Moylan In Miller versus Warden, Maryland
House of Corrections. — Md. Ct. of Spec. App. — (Jan. 1973), which relates to waiver
of jury trials in Maryland.)
Maryland Rule 741, ' "Jury Trial — Waiver," provided :
"An accused may waive a jury trial and elect to be tried by the court. If an
accused elects to be tried by the court the State may not elect a jury trial. An
election to be tried by the court must be made before any evidence in the trial
on the merits is taken unless otherwise provided by local rule of court."
It is axiomatic that a criminal defendant in Maryland has the right to a trial
by .iury. This right is conferred by Article 5 and Article 21 of the Maryland
Declaration of Rights. It is also conferred by the due process clause of the Four-
T The Rule was amended, pffective September 1, 1P71, to read :
"Rule 741. .Turv Trial — Election.
"An accused mav elect to be tried by .iurv or by the court. Sucb '^lectk'ti shall bp mad° by
the accused in open court -when first called upon to plead after he Is represented by
counsel of record or has waived counsel. If an accused elf^cts to be tried by the court, the
State may not elect a .iury trial. The court may, in Its discretion and for good cause shown,
at any time prior to the trial permit the accused to chanjre his election."
The amendment was dnu'ile-edsed. It provided that the election should be made by the
accused In open court, mechanics as to which the predecessor rule had been silent. The
other change was one of deliberate semantics. It deleated all reference to "waiver" of the
jury trial and pointedly emphapi'fd "election" between court trial and jury trial. The
critical verb became "to elect" and not "to waive."
1275
teenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, which has been held by Buncan
V. Louisiana, 301, U.S. 145. to incorporate the jury trial provision of the Sixth
Amendment. Our problem is to decide how one elects to exercise that right or,
alternatively, liow one waives that right. The recognition of the right under the
Maryland Declaration of Rights being fifteen years senior to the recognition by the
Federal Bill of Rights, we are confident that our experience in implementing that
right will not lightly be disregarded.
(>ur preliminary problem is to isolate the precise issue before us. In the lan-
guage of the artilleryman, we shall "bracket the target." Initially, it is settled
that the decision as to mode of trial (however made) must be the deci.«!ion of
the accused himself. Counsel may not "make" (as opposed to "announce") that
decision for him. State v. Howard, 7 Md. App. 429. Our issue lies beyond that.
At the opposite extreme, it is settled that the decision of the accused in this
regard, albeit of necessity made by him, need not be "announced" by him or*
shown upon the face of the record. It is sufficient that the decision, even though
announced by counsel, have been in fact made or acquiesced in by the accused.
It is the true state of the defendant's mind which ultimately must be ascer-
tained. No catechism a la Boykin or Miranda has been constitutionally pre-
scribed. Even our holding in Z'nnmerman v. State, 9 I\Id. App. 488, overruled in
other regards by State i\ Zimmerman, 261 Md. 11, did not impose such a ritual-
istic obligation upon the State or the court." Our issue lies short of this.
It being settled then that the decision must be personal to the accused, on the
one hand, but that it need not personally be announced by the accused," on the
other hand, we pinpoint our present issue intermediately between those two fixed
points — what was the quality of the decision, in fact, made by accused, even
if made in the silence of his own thoughts?
In making that determination, we are making an independent constitutional
opinion judgment. Dillingham v. State. 9 Md. App. 669, 714 (concurring opinion
by Orth, J.). In doing so, we give great weight to the findings of Judge Mathias
as to the specific, first-level facts (such as what was said and by whom, the
demeanor and the courtroom experience of the applicant, the course of the trial
itself, the strategic situation facing the applicant, etc. ) . We must, of course, make
our own independent judgment as to what to make of those facts. We must resolve
for ourselves the ultimate, second-level fact — the existence or non-existence of
an effective waiver. Walker v. State, 12 Md. App. 684, 695.
The findings of Judge Mathias are contained in the Opinion and Order of Court :
"The Court finds from the record [that] . . . there was an aflSrmative indica-
tion on the morning of the trial that it would be a Court trial. It is concluded
from Mr. Bryan's testimony the petitioner was in the courtroom. . . .
Further, it is imperative that the Court review the facts in this case. It is very
obvious that there were two technical questions in this case ; whether it was
dark or daylight, and the question of whether a penknife in his pocket was, in
fact, a dangerous and deadly weapon. It is rather obvious Mr. Bryan was success-
ful in having a judgment of acquittal in Count Two, the penknife. It was the
defendant's testimony that gained him that judgment of acquittal in explanation
of how he got the penknife.
The Court further finds from the testimony of Mr. Miller and the record that
he is not dull and did understand the nature of what was transpiring. Conversely,
' The applicant does, indeed, advance this arjrninent as a second line of dofense. His
references to Waijne v. State. 4 Md. App. 424. and Moore v. State, 1 Md. App. .S30, are not
directly relevant, since they deal with the constitutional "rijrht to counsel." Both cases use
the broad language of the Supreme Court in .Johnson v. Zerbst, supra, and Carnleji v.
Cochran, supra, both of which are also "riglit to counsel" cases. The applicant's reference
to rulinjrs In this refjard in Illinois, in California, in Michigan and in the Federal system Is
not helpful, since in those .iurisdictions the trial by court is not the time-honored and
prestigious alternative to trial by .iury which it is in Maryland, but rather occupies inferior
status resorted to onl.v when the superior mode is foregone. Indeed, in tlie Federal system.
an accused does not even have the unfettered right of trial by court If the Government
insists upon trial by .1ury. Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24.
' In Zimmerman, the election of a court trial was announced by Zimmerman's lawyer. It
was impossible to ascertain from the record whether Zimmerman had acquiesced in the
decision or not. We attempted to remand the case to the trial court for a further eviden-
tiary finding in order to determine whether there had. In fact, been a knowing and volun-
tary acquiescence in the decision announced by counsel.
^^ State V. Zimmerman, supra, a 2.")-26. the Court of Appeals wisely points out that "the
preferable practice in accepting an election of trial by the court from an accused is for the
trial judge at that time to determine on the record whether this is a knowing election on
the part of the accused of a court trial in lieu of a .iury trial." It make clear, however, that
the suggested guideline is "calculated to reduce litigation" and is not an absolute require-
ment, the breach of which would be fatal error. It Is a suggestion for judicial husbandry
and not a constitutional mandate.
1276
the Court is convinced that Mr. Miller is very streetwise and courtwise. From
his testimony and his record he very well knew what was going on in that trial
that day, and if he, in fact, did not concur with Mr. Bryan in that trial he cer-
tainly would have indicated at that time that he did not concur in it. Therefore,
the Court will deny the contention that he did not knowingly and intelligently
waive his right to a jury trial in Criminal Trials No. 10,585 for the reasons given
and the testimony,"
Giving great deference to the first-level findings of Judge Mathias and then
making our own independent judgment thereon, we determine the applicant here
did knowingly and voluntarily acquiesce in his lawyer's election of a court trial,
thereby effectively waiving his right to a jury trial. Nothing in Zimmerman v.
State, supra, or in State v. Zimmerman, supra, persuades us to find otherwise.
Although in Zimmerman v. State, we tended to emphasize unduly, in the light
of State V. Zimmerman, the waiver of the jury trial vis-a-vis the venerable Mary-
land practice of electing between two equally valued modes of trial, we still did
not hold that that waiver must be expressed by the accused personally, on the
face of the record. In that case, counsel had elected a court trial. We were
unable to conclude whether Zimmerman had or had not knowingly and volun-
tarily acquiesced in the decision of his counsel. We attempted to send the ca.se
back for a further factual finding to resolve that issue. The Court of Appeals.
in reversing that decision, held that the appropriate forum for such further
factual finding is a post conviction petition hearing and not the trial court upon
remand. In either event, there was a factual hearing by Judge Mathias in the
case at bar. He determined that the applicant did knowingly and voluntarily
waive his right to a jury trial. He supported that finding, in the oral opinion
of the court, by pointing out how such an election was the only strategically intel-
ligent decision for this court-wise defendant to have made :
"A reading of the testimony in the transcript, which I recessed to accomplish,
would certainly indicate that his testimony was rather intelligent too, after
what transpired. He knew what kind of trial he was confronted with. He knew
that the police ofiacers found him in the apartment. They walked in and he w,)^
in there. There was a bunch of clothes stacked up in the dining room. His buddy
u-as hiding in the closet and when the officers told him to come out he said
he came out. Why? Because he was afraid the police were going to shoot through
the door.
He exercised good judgment. That may very well have been what would have
happened. He knew that he was caught. In his opinion Judge Bowie said 'red"
and did not use the word 'handed', but I think he meant that the defendant was
caught red-handed in the apartment. Mr. Miller knew what he was confronted
with. Counsel, if you please, knew what he was confronted with with a jury.
Those facts have a definite bearing on who might I believe as to whether he
intelligently and knowingly waived."
Judge Mathias pointed out, quite astutely, that where an accused has been
caught red-handed and where his only defenses are of a technical nature,"^
sound strategy dictates the election of a court trial :
"At the time he and Bryan both thought it was a good idea that with the kind
of evidence that they had in looking at the transcript, to have a Court trial.
It is one of those cases that no sensible lawyer would present to a jury . . ."'
We note, moreover, that the applicant here has, to this day, never indicated
that he desired a jury trial. He relies exclusively on what he hopes to be a
deficiency on the face of the record. We feel as did the Court of Appeals in State
V. Zimmerman, supra, at 23 :
"In the state of this record we do not perceive a factual dispute. There was
before the court an election of a court trial by counsel in the presence of the
accused, the exact situation which appeared in Rose. There is nothing in this
record to show that Zimmerman ever wanted a jury trial. Even now he does not
say he desired a jury trial. If he in fact did w^ant a jury trial, it is odd that
he did not express himself when the election was made and did not raise this point
in his petition for right to appeal as an indigent, although, as the record indicates,
he was not bashful in expressing himself in that petition on other points he re-
garded as worthy . . ."'
We hold that the intelligent and voluntary election of a court trial, announced
by applicant's covnisel and acquiesced in by the applicant, was an effective waiver
of trial by jury. As the Court of Appeals said in State v. Zimmerman, at 12 : "We
" See Bond. The Maryland Practice of Triiinri Criminal Pafirx fi;i Jurlges Alone. Without
Jnrien, 11 A.B.A.,T. 699 (1925). at 702: "Trial before the court alone is sometimes pre-
ferred when a defense is based mainly on a point of law . . ."
1277
do not consider whether an accused may elect a court trial, thereby waiving a
jury trial. That is established. Rose v. State, 177 Md. 577."
If the specilic holding of State v. Zimmerman was that cases will not be
remanded to the trial court for further evidentiai-y findings, the broad import of
State V. Zimmertnan was to place the waiver question in its proper conceptual
context as to modes of trial in first the Colony Palatine and now the Free State
of Maryland. The Court of Appeals quotes generously from Chief Judge Carroll T.
Bond in both Rose v. State, 177 Md. 577,'" and in his article, "The Maryland
Practice of Trying Criminal Cases by Judge.s Alone, Without Juries" in 11
A. B.A.J. 699 (1925). It points out that from the founding of this colony until
the present day,^^ the court trial has been a qualitatively and quantitatively
valuable and valued part of the criminal trial practice of this sovereignty. In
the words of Judge Bond :
"So in this State the practice is one of respectable age, and it seems to Mary-
land lawyers to be fully as natural a feature of the administration of criminal
justice as does the jury trial. They have been quite unaware that there was
anything extraordinary in it, and are always surprised when they learn that in
other jursdictions an accused cannot have a trial without a jury if he wishes it.
A docket of jury trials only is something of which Maryland lawyers can
hardly conceive; and it would dismay them." 11 A.B.A.J. 701.
Unlike virtually every other American jurisdiction," we have traditionally
not even considered the phenomenon in terms of waiving a normal or superior
mode of trial by jury for some lesser or abnormal trial by court. We have spoken
rather of election between two equals. The precautionary skepticism which,
therefore, quite properly, circumscribes such decisions as 1) tendering a guilty
plea or 2) proceeding to trial without counsel, would have no place in the
routine election of a court trial in Maryland — a tactically dictated selection of
forum for a fully contested trial. In this sovereignty, an intelligent and voluntary
election of one trial mode is, ipso facto, an appropriate waiver of the alternative
trial mode.
The waiver of trial by jury in many states is tantamount to a plea of nolo
contendere — a virtual throwing in of the sponge — a "submission" to the court —
and, therefore, a drastically more severe relinquishment of rights than is the
waiver in Maryland, which is but the free election of an equally attractive mode
of trial.'" It would be exalting form over substance to impose the same waiver
standard upon two such disparate relinquishments. Whatever may have been the
broad language of the Supreme Court when dealing with the generality of states,
we cannot imagine that that Court, if called upon to focus in on our imique
history, would declare Maryland's experience of several hundred years, with no
cry of injustice having been raised, to be beyond the pale of "fundamental
fairness" or incompatible with "the concept of ordered liberty." Yet such would
be the import of insisting upon trial by jury as the preferred, the superior, the
normal mode of trial, which must be knowingly relinquished or abandoned before
12 state V Zimmerman made it clear that Rose v. State was still in full vigor and that
our partial inhumation of it In Zimmerman v. State, at 49.5, n. 4, was, at best. prem.Tture.
"The trend of reofnt vears has remained true to that analyzed hy Chief Judge Bond
from pre-Revolutionarv times to 1925. The records of the Baltimore City State's Attorney's
Office revei^l that between 1952 and 1970. between 4,000 and 9,000 criminal Indictments
were disposed of each year. An average of approximately 14% were disposed of by way of
the negotiated guilty plea. The great bulk of the indictments went to trial and wore fought
out upon the merits. During that eigheen-year-period, the percentage of jury trials fluctu-
ated between 1% and 3%. The percentage of court trials fluctuated between U~% and
99% The court trial in Baltimore, as in other parts of Maryland, is a stern contest each
step of the way Capital cases are frequently tried before panels of two or three judges and
may consume weeks of trial time. As far back as 1872, Leaoue v. State, .36 Md. 2.57, recog-
nized that in a multi-judge court trial, majority rule, and not unanimity, would prevail.
It is not in diminution of the vigor of the contests that they are played out before faster
referees, who do not have to be taught the rules afresh for each new game. See Sherrill v.
State, 14 Md. App. 146, i 57.
" Of the common law jurisdictions in North America, it is understood that the Maryland
experience in this regard is shared only by the Province of Ontario.
15 See Bond. op. cit., at 702 : , . , , ^ .^ ^ . .
"The reasons which prompt the choice of a trial before the Court in one case and
another are. of course, many and various. Every imaginable reason for thinking that a
particular prisoner would stand a better chance of acquittal on the particular charge
l)y a judge presiding than by the jury, must sometimes come into play. Small advantages
in strategy, the personality and disposition of the judge, or the makeup of the jury
panel — all" such considerations must influence the choice and incline counsel now one way
and now another. But there are more important reasons. Fear of the effect oi popular preju-
dice upon a jury, either because of the nature of the charge, or because of something
connected with the accused personally, is a very frequent ground of choice. It is common
for defendants with known bad records to prefer trial before the court alone. And when
the crime has aroused anger in the community from which the jury is chosen, trial
before the court Is frequently preferred.''
1278
resort may be had to a lesser and second-class mode of trial. Indeed, in the
liealthy laboratory of varied state experiences, others may yet follow where the
Jklaryland experiment has led. In macrocosm, three hard fought court trials may
represent more fundamental fairness than one hard fought jury trial plus two
negotiated guilty pleas.^" It is an unrealistic appraisal which ignores the total
operation of a criminal justice system.
Trial by jury, in the ascendant since the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, has
banished from the field such time-honored rivals as trial by ordeal of fire, trial
by ordeal of water, trial by compurgation of witnesses and even the more recent
Norman innovation of trial by battle. It has not banished from this realm trial
by court. Whatever the direction in which our sister sovereignties may wish to
travel, we see nothing in the notion of due process which would compel relegating
to the attic of practice in this commonwealth, a trial mode which has served us
expeditiously, fairly and well since our forefathers planted the common law of
England upon these shores."
Chairman Pepper. The committee will adjourn until 2 o'clock
tomorrow afternoon.
[Whereupon, at 2:25 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene
at 2 p.m., on Wednesday, May 9, 1973.]
10 See Moylan, The Trial of a Criminal Case Before The Court Without a Jury, 17 Neb.
State. B.J. i38 (1968), at 139 :
"Because of this heavy reliance in Baltimore on the Court trial, there has been little
necessity for plea-bargaining as a method for relieving the criminal docket. In recent
years in Baltimore, approximating 14 per cent of all the cases coming to trial in the
Baltimore Criminal Courts resulted in pleas of guilty. This is in sharp contrast with
most other parts of the country where plea-bargaining is a major factor in the dispo-
sition of criminal cases. . . . [I]n New York only about 2.5 per cent of the indictments
ever actually go to trial and . . . the other 97.5 per cent nre worked out on a nogotiatpd
plea basis. Sometimes armed robbery indictments are compromised not simply down ro
unarmed robbery, but even all the way down to one year simple assault pleas. By carry-
ing our cases to trial, this type of plea-bargaining . . . simply does not have to exist."
1" As an avidly wooed analogy, Boykin v. Alabama is currently very much in vogue
with criminal defendants. In the case at bar, of course, the applicant sought to impose
Bopkin's catechism upon the constitutional right to trial by jui"y. In White i\ State, No. 308,
September Term, 1972, filed this day, the defendant there sought to l)ring the withdrawal
of a plea of insanity under its broad umbrella. In an excellent analysis. Judge Scanlan
gave the effort short shrift and demonstrated the utter inapplicability of the Boykin stric-
tures to the ongoing tactical decisions of the trial table.
STREET CRIME IN AMERICA
(Prosecution and Court Innovations)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 1973
House of Ivepresentati\t5S,
Select Co:mmittee on Crime,
Washington^ D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 :20 p.m., in room 2261,
Eayburn House Office Building, Hon. Claude Pepper (chairman)
presidinof.
Present : Representatives Pepper, Mann, Murphy, Rangel, Wiggins,
and Winn.
Also present: Chris Xolde. chief counsel; Robert Trainor, assistant
<^ounsel; Thomas O'Halloran, assistant counsel; and Leroy Bedell,
hearings officer.
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
"We are very pleased to have with us this afternoon, one of our
distinguished and revered colleagues in the House, who comes from
the great city of San Antonio. We will ask him if he will be kind
enough to introduce our first witness this afternoon, an eminent jurist
from the San Antonio area.
Our distinguished friend and colleague, ]Mr. Henry Gonzalez.
STATEMENT OE EON. HENRY B. GONZALEZ, A U.S. REPRESENTA-
TIVE FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
^[r. GoxzALEz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I especially am grateful to you and the members of the select com-
mittee for giving me the opportunity to be here to greet a very famous
Texan, a most outstanding public servant and one who is very well-
known and highly honored and recognized in our urea. Judge Adrian
Spears, who first'went to the Federal bench in 1961. But prior to this,
he was one of, if not the leadinc: attornev, successful in the leaal
profession niid his practice and had gained quite a bit of fame m the
handling of some cases that had very much to do with such things as
municipal employees, fire and police matters, that involved detail
and also, on the part of the lawyer, an interest and an awareness of
needs in the public sector.
But more importantly, ]\Ir. Chairman, I think your committee
recognizes the work that Judge Spears has done in one most significant
respect, and I am sure that you will be hearing from him as to the
particular-'::. T am sui'e this is the reason Avhy. even in this area, out of
all of the 50 States, the name of Judge Adrian Spears stood out.
(1279)
95-lii8— 73— pt. ?, — —21
1280
There is a very good reason for it. When Judge Spears Avas ap-
pointed to the western district, he was the only judge in that entire
area that had full caseload plus more. He was quick to see, being an
agile-minded man, that the usual procedures which, incidentally, had
been associated with Federal-level court procedures, vfould not suffice
if justice were to prevail.
In the meantime, Judge Spears has compiled an incredible record,
an accumulation of casework that on tlie record seems incredible
and so successful that you seldom hear of any appellate court over-
ruling his decisions. Yet, he has been innovative, he has instituted pro-
cedures that bring the court system to the ideal level that I have heard
3^ou discuss, Mr. Chairman, in connection with the question of criminal
procedure.
It was Judge Spears that introduced a novel or unique approach in
the handling of cases. Seeing the pressure as to the number of cases
that were piling up, never losing sight of being an individual judge
over an individual case, he, nevertheless, has instituted procedures that
I think should have the benefit of national attention, and once they do,
will be incorporated, and in the future people will wonder wdiy it took
so long to do what Judge Spears has been doing all along.
It is a real honor, Mr. Chairman, at this time to present this very
notable San Antonian. We all love him, those of the legal profession to
a man honor him, and I join with them in presenting to you a dis-
tinguished jud,(^e and public servant.
Chairman Pepper. Thank you very much, Mr. Gonzalez. We are
verv much honored to have Judge Spears with us.
These hearings have sought out all over the country the police, the
jurists in the various categories of courts, the various other officers
having to do w^itli correctional institutions, for example, who have
been innovative and imaginative and creative and constructive in their
approach to their administration of justice in our country.
So, Judge, you are one of the most highly mentioned judges that we
had brought to our attention and we are very much honored and grate-
ful to have you be with us this afternoon. I know you had to make sacri-
fices in order to be here. We hope your conunc: will give an example
that others may follow in the courts of the country and promote even
a better system for the administration of justice in our land.
We welcome you. Judge, and we will be glad to have you make your
statement.
Mr. Counsel, what would your pleasure be?
Mr. NoLDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We would like to hear from Judge Spears and I would also like to
introduce Mr. Gillespie, who came with Judge Spears.
Mr. Gilles]5ie is a graduate of St. Mary's University School of Law,
was in the Judge Advocate's Corps of the U.S. Army, was on the
faculty of the Practicing Law Institute, and is a distinguished member
of the San Antonio Bar. In fact, he has been an eminent practitioner
there for the past 18 years. He will give us the defense side of the
procedure which Judge Spears has so innovatively put into effect into
his court.
We will be pleased to have you. Judge Spears, make an opening
statement.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Gillespie, we are very much pleased to have
you, too, and thank you very much for coming.
Judge, you may proceed if you will.
1281
STATEMENTS OF HON. ADRIAN SPEARS, CHIEF JUDGE, U.S. DIS-
TRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT, SAN ANTONIO, TEX.; AC-
COMPANIED BY JAMES GILLESPIE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
Judge SrEARs. Thank you, JNlr. Chairman.
First, of course, I would like to acknowledge this fine introduction
that our great Congressman has given to me. I don't have to tell you,
because you already know, that he is honored by all segments of our
community, not only in San Antonio, but in Texas as well.
I just attended, a few nights ago, an occasion at St. Mary's Law
School where he was honored as the outstanding alumnus of St. Mary's
University Law School. This is just one of the many, many honors
he receives almost weekly.
Chairman Pepper. Judge, he is certainly one of the most esteemed
Members of the House of Representatives. We all love him.
Judge Spears. I know he is. We are proud of him. I could spend my
whole time talking about Henry, but I am not going to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps it might be in order for me to tell
you something of the situation that we have in the Western District
of Texas.
This district is as large, geographically, as the States of Penn-
sylvania and New York combined. It is 800 miles across it, not as the
crow flies, but as you have to drive to go from one division point to an-
other, from Waco to Austin, to San Antonio to Del Ilio, up to Pecos,
Midland, Odessa, and then into El Paso. So we have a tremendous
geographical area to cover.
Congressman Gonzalez mentioned the fact that early in my tenure
on the bench I was faced with some real problems. I will tell you what
the primary problem was.
I was the third judge that was created in that district. Prior to the
time I came to the bench, we had two judges, fine men, both of them,
who had become elderly. One was 82 at the time I came on the bench;
the other was 75 or 76 and both of them were reaching the point where
they were thinking very seriously about retiring.
Shortly after I came on the bench, one of the judges did retire and,
imfortunately, the other one became ill and died subsefuiently from
this illness. So for a period of about 7 or 8 mojiths I vv'as the only judge
in the district, covering the entire district. I don't have to tell j-ou,
with a border of some 450 miles between Mexico and Texas, that we
have just about every kind of crime that is laiownto man, and some that
no one else has to concern himself with.
In our border cities, particularly in Del Rio and El Paso, we had
tremendous volumes of immigration cases, among others; narcotics
cases were a part of our caseload. In San Antonio we have large nar-
cotic caseloads.
Well, with the jails full all over the district and with one judge
to empty them it was almost o\-erwhelming. I knew that something
had to be done, that I simply could not take care of this tremendous
workload without some assistance.
One time during this period, I was down in Del Rio, which is on the
border between Texas and ]\Iexico. We had a U.S. attorney at that time
who was a very fine gentlemen, an excellent lawyer, and a very compas-
sionate type of person. I had set a large number of cases on the docket
1282
m Del Rio. "When I went in fclie courtroom it was full, and I wondered
wlio these people were.
So I asked one of the court attendants who they were. He said, "They
are witnesses." I said, "In what case?"
He said, "In the mail fraud case." I said, "Wliat mail fraud case?"
It was on the docket but I hadn't had a chance to look over the cases
and see what they were. He said, "This is the first case on the docket
and these witnesses are here to testify."
The government had brought some 50 witnesses and I don't know
how many the defendant had. They told me that it would take 2 weeks
to try this case.
Well, you can imagine the predicament I found myself in with all
of the work that had to be done to take care of those people who were
in jail and were entitled either to a speedy trial or to be released. In
desperation, I said to the U.S. attorney, "Mr. Morgan, would you con-
sider showing the defendant your file ?"
He looked at me as though I had gone stark raving mad. Then he
thought for a few moments and said, "No, I have no objection," where-
upon, he piclvcd up his file and handed it over to the defense counsel.
At this point I said, "We will take a few minutes and let you have an
opportunity to see what it is. You gentlemen get together and talk
about this case and see if we can't do something to expedite it."
Thirty minutes later the lawyers came into my chambers and told
me that the defendant had decided to plead guilty. In about 30 or 40
minutes, then, we disposed of a case that would have taken us 10 days
to 2 weeks to try.
This got me thinking that the U.S. attorney could feel that way
about it. his assistants might see the same advantages. So we instituted
in our district a pretrial procedure in criminal cases, where the U.S.
attorney, with his full acquiescence, would give to the defense counsel
his complete file at or shortly after the arraignment.
Now. I don't want to be in the position of telling the committee
things that you already laiow, but I have to do like I toll lawyers they
should do — they should never argue to the court as though the court
knows anything, because they might miss something they should have
called to the court's attention. In the law, of course, Ave have the Jencks
Act which provides, in effect, that after a witness has testified for the
government, then defense counsel is entitled to demand and receive
a copy of any statements the witness may have made.
A number of years ago, the Supreme Court decided a case called
Brady versus Maryland, in which the Court said, in effect, that tlie
proseciition should furnish to the defense all evidence in the prosecu-
tion's file that may be material to the defense or might lead to the
discovery of material evidence.
Well, in that instance, the Supreme Court told us what to do, but
they didn't tell us how to do it. This created problems for a number
of reasons, but primarily because the judge was put in the position of
liaving to detennine upon an in camera examination of the file, after
a prosecvitor had given the defendant what he thought was material
to his case, whether there was anything else in the prosecution's file
that the defendant was entitled to have.
If tlie defendant demanded it, this had to be done.
1283
Of course, the jiid<2:c is not an advocate in the case and, certainl}',
before tlie case begins he wouldn't know what tlie theoiy of tlie defense
was. Obviously, when a defendant comes in and pleads not fi^uilty, that
is it, and the prosecution is then fac^^d with the burden of proving
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So even though a defendant might
come in and demand that tlie government produce evidence that was
material to his defense, there was no way for the judge to determine
whether the evidence in the prosecution's file was actually material
until he had at least heard the government's case.
Even then the judge was at a disadvantage in trying to ascertain
what documents, or statements, or other matters in the file might be
beneficial to a defendant.
One time I tried a jury case over in Houston for one of the judges
there. It was a tax fraud case. It took 10 days to try. I was in a quan-
dar^^ tlie whole time because we had an astute defense lawyer who was
demanding, at eveiT stage of the trial the defendant's rights under
Brady versus Maryland. He wanted to know what the government
had that was material to the defense of his client, but the prosecution
would tell him on each occasion: ""We have given you everything."
So, one weekend while the trial was in progress. Government counsel
handed me, for an in-camera inspection, a file about a foot thick.
I started reading those voluminous intraoffice communications and
other documents, but I was at a complete loss to know what informa-
tion might be beneficial to the defendant. The best that I could do
was make an educated guess. An acquittal saved me from finding out
wliether or not I had guessed right.
Well, all of these things being in my mind and realizing that at
some point in the proceeding the prosecutor has got to make a full
disclosure, the only question remained was when.
Now, I could never see why in the vast majority of cases the prose-
cution would benefit substantially by waiting until after a witness
testified before his statement was given to defense counsel, unless it
would be because it might be thought that defense counsel simply
wouldn't have time to digest the statement after it was given to them.
In any event, since these incidents occur right in the middle of the
trial — the court usuall}^ takes a 15- or 20-minute recess, during which
the defense attorney is supposed to read the statement and digest it,
and be able to cross-examine on it.
When the statement covers several pages additional time must be
allowed. The upshot is tliat the jurors have to cool their heels in the
jury room and the judge had to try to do other things while this study
is being done.
In my suggestions to the U.S. attorney, and during the time that
we were conducting our own type of pretrial, I got him to agree to
furnish all of this material beforehand so that there would be no
waste of time when the case came to court. Not only that, the cases
that went to trial were tried more expeditiousl}' and, in addition, they
were more intelligently presented because the defendant and the
prosecution knew more about what they were required to do and how
to do it.
We operated under our local court rules on that basis for about
4 years with a great deal of success. Then in 1967 I heard by chance —
and it really was by chance because I happened to be at a meeting
where I sat next to a man who was acquainted with work that was
1284
being done by a subcommittee of tlie American Bar Association— tliat
Jiido-e Carter from San Diego, who at tliat time was on the district
]iench, was beginning to experiment with what was called the omnibus
hen ring |:)rocedure.
Well, I immediately wrote to Judge Carter. I had known him before.
In fact, he had been one of my instructors at the seminar I attended
when I was a newly appointed judge. He promptly told me that he
would be happy for me to participate in this experiment with him.
He sent me all tlie material that the subcommittee had worked out
to provide for full disclosure between the prosecution and the defense,
and wo have worked with this procedure very effectively and very
successfully ever since that time.
I am sorry that Mr. Harrison, who Avas in the U.S. attorney's office
for about 8* or 9 years, 6 of which he spent as head of the criminal
division in our district, is not here. I wish that he were here to give
you some ideas as to how the prosecution feels about this, because
prosecution attorneys are usually hidebound by the traditional con-
cept of the armlength transaction between tha prosecution and the
defense. The prosecution doesn't like to tell the defense anything and,
by the same token, if that situation persists the defense is not going
to tell the prosecution anything.
[Mr, Harrison's prepared statement was received for the record
and appears at the end of this testimony.]
In my judgment, the net result is that the administration of justice
suffers. If we want to be altruistic, or if we want to be just plain fair
in the administration of justice, a criminal trial must constitute a
search for the truth, and what Judge IMurrah refers to as "trial by
ambush," or the "sporting theory of justice," in my judgment, ought
to ta]i:e a back seat.
This is not something new. As I understand it, they do it in England.
Tlie military in this country, I am informed, hands over their lile in
a court-martial case to the defense so they can be prepared to answer,
"We start out first by sending a notice through the clerk's office
whenever a person's case is set for arraignment, giving the attorney
who was either appointed or employed by him an opportunity to
ascertain whether or not he w\ants to participate. The procedure as
presently utilized is strictly voluntary.
And let me say here, that even though in the beginning we met with
some resistance from our bar, today I know of no lawyer in San
Antonio who refuses to participate because he doesn't believe in it.
Every now" and then one will refuse because his client doesn't under-
stand it, and he has no choice but to refuse if the client tells him to
do it. But I know of no lawyer who voluntarily refuses to participate.
]SIr. Harrison, the young man who was to be vrith us today, and
couldn't because of the fact that his mother was seriously injured, had
written a six- or seven-page single-spaced memorandum to his boss,
the U.S, attorney, telling him that this was the worst thing he had
ever heard of, that the administration of justice was going to take a
back seat, that the lawyers would just play cagey with one another,
and that it was a one-way street, and all of this sort of thing.
Needless to say, over the period of the last 4 or 5 years, he has
appeared with us on a number of occasions before various groups in
which he has admitted his error and has said that from the prosecution
standpoint he is convinced this is the best procedure available to
guarantee the proper administration of justice.
1285
A^Hiat docs it do? It cuts down trial time, if yon try a case. In a
narcotics case, for example, we cnstomarily get stipulations that the
contraband involved is -whatever the chemist says it is. "Why? Because
tlie lawyers know it is ridiculous to let the Government parade wit-
nesses on the stand to prove things that they can't contest, because of
the adverse psychological effect that it would have on the jury. This
stipulation alone saves several hours of courtroom time.
Another thing we get now from the defendant is a stipulation that
the contraband has been in tlie custod}' of (xovernment agents from
the time it was seized until the time of trial. This cuts down some-
times 3, 4, or 5 hours, depending upon how many agents have handled
it in the process. jMeticulous testimony reflecting the details of the
chain of custody are usually without dispute and are really un-
necessary.
Another thinji that cuts down on the trial time is that defense law-
yers already know what the statements are that the prosecuting wit-
nesses have made since tliey know^ beforehand wliat the testimony
is going to be, they are able to immediately cross-examine. But you
know, better still, they are able to decide when they shouldn't cross-
examine. And all of us know, or should know, that it is more often than
not the questions you ask that hurt you, rather than the questions you
didn't ask.
So the lawyers are more able to intelligently prepare their cases
for trial.
But the best feature is from the standpoint of the administration
of justice, that a defendant who comes into court can make an en-
lightened, intelligent plea. His lawj-er doesn't have to tell him, "I
think they are going to do this ; I think they are going to do that." He
can show him wdiat the witnesses are going to testify to. Then he can
look him square in the eye and ask, "What can you produce to refute
this?''
Most of the time, the cases end up in pleas of guilty.
Now, some might say, well, is it a proper administration of justice
simply because you get guilty pleas? I say it is, under the circum-
stances, because these are informed pleas of guilty. They are not made
in contemplation of some deal or some plea-bargaining procedure en-
gaged in by the attorneys, but not fully understood by the defendant.
And then if the defendant is sent to prison, I think he makes a better
prisoner because he knows that the prosecution did have the evidence
against him.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on about this. I want to give
my young friend here, who was another one of those that objected
strcjiuously to "Omnibus," an oppoifunity to talk. He had said it just
wouldn't work, and I am not going to tell the prosecution anything,
but after a while he began to realize that it was in the interest of his
client and himself, too.
[The prepared statement of Judge Spears appears at the end of his
testimony.]
Ciiairman Pepper. Judge, could you give us any more details of
just how the Omnibus plan ^vorks ?
Judge Speaps. All right. The clerk sends out the form to the lawyer
who is appointed or emploved. Then tlie attoi-ney sends bark the form
indicating whether he will or will not particpate in Omnibus. In al-
most every case the lawj-er does participate.
1286
If he indicates that he wants to participate, he has 10 days during
which he and the prosecuting attorney must get together for an at-
torneys' conference. At this conference they discuss the pros and cons.
The defense attorney will try to determine whether any motions are
in order, like motions to suppress, motions to dismiss, et cetera. If they
are, he will indicate on the checklist form that goes to him.
Chairman Pepper. Will you describe the checklist to us, please ?
Judge Spears. Yes. The checklist form has on it every conceivable
defense that a defendant can raise in a lawsuit. If it isn't here, those
who had the job of preparing the checklist simply didn't know about
it.
Now, some lawyers may find some things that we did not have noted
on the checklist, but generallj^ they are there. The lawyer who is not ex-
perienced in the criminal practice will find before him in this form a
ready reference to whatever might be involved in his case.
Chairman Pepper. Without objection on the part of any member of
the committee, we would like to have that checklist in the record.
Judge Spears. All right. I will be glad to put it in the record.
[The checklist referred to appears at the end of Judge Spears'
testimony.]
Judge Spears. This permits the attorney for the prosecution and the
defense to indicate simply by circling a number, whether or not he
wants to raise any particular issue. He doesn't have a file written
"boiler plate" motions raising the same legal questions in case after
case. Judges who hear the motions to suppress raising constitutional
questions involving search and seizure and Miranda warnings usually
know without detail motions and briefs whether there is any substan-
tial basis for presenting them. It is only in the ver}^ unusual case that
the judge needs a brief.
Now, anything that is on this form that either side wants to raise,
they can do simply by checking the appropriate number without, as
I say, going through the chore of preparing a written motion and a
brief to accompany it, which is usually what is required by our local
court rules in the ordinary case.
Mr. Rangel. Excuse me. Judge. When you say "either side," what
type of things would the government indicate that they would want
to raise ? Would that be on the checklist, too?
Judge Spears. It is on the checklist. Really, there are quite a few
of them, but I will tell you some oflliand. The government will want
to know whether the defense of alibi will be raised. If it is to be, then
the defendant checks it and the government is entitled to know who
their witnesses are.
If the defense is going to raise the defense of insanit}^ they will check
it on the list, and then the government is entitled to know the names of
the witnesses who will appear.
If the defendant is going to put his character in issue, the govern-
ment will be so advised and will be in a position to find out who
those witnesses are, so they can not only talk to them, but go into
the area and see if they can find any evidence that would refute the
evidence these character witnesses might give.
So it is very comprehensive, very complete, in covering every as-
pect of a criminal trial.
Chairman Pepper. Excuse me, Judge. Justice Clark, in telling me
for the first time about your Omnibus plan, mentioned the alibi defense
1287
as a possibility, and then the State's attorney, the prosecnthig attorney,
works very hard to check it out. If he found that the defendant did
have a bona fide alibi he might dismiss the case without ever having
toffoon for trial.
Judge Spears. I think Mr. Gillespie will tell you of an incident of
his own where the Government did dismiss the case when they found
the alibi was complete.
It is really, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, a two-way
street. There isn't any question about it. The prosecution gets informa-
tion that they wouldn't ordinarily get. Now, we can't require a defend-
ant to testify against himself, and we don't attempt to, but any evi-
dence that he is going to produce, or intends to produce at the trial, he
can divulge ahead of time.
Chairman Pepper. This is somewhat the equivalent of a trial con-
ference in a civil case ?
Judge Spears. It is almost exactly the same. The only exception is
that vou can't take the deposition of the defendant. You can't require
him personally to give any information. But anything that he is going
to present as "a defense the prosecution is entitled to know, and does
know because thev are told.
You know, at first, when this thing began the lawyers would come
into court in what we call the omnibus hearing and I might spend an
hour, an hour and a half, or 2 hours sometimes even longer, trying
to prod them into telling each other these things, because they were
bucking their experience and training and education over a period of
many years. But now — and I think Mr. Gillespie will hear this out^
omnibus hearings, as such, are a thing of the past.
I don't think I have had a so-called omnibus hearing in the last 3
years. "\Ve get into court at the arraignment, the lawyers have already
"met, the defendant knows the charges against him, he Imows who is
going to testify against him. and the Government knows what the
defense is going to be. If there isn't a plea of guilty, then they are
right down to the bedrock as to what the disputed fact issues are. If a
motion to suppress has been indicated, they show on the form whether
it is a Miranda question or whether it is a search-and-seizure question.
I will set those for a hearing at sometime in the future, just as soon
as possible, and more often than not the case washes itself out on the
motion to suppress.
If the court grants the motion to suppress, then, obviously, the
evidence is out of the window and unless an appeal is taken and it
is reversed, the defendant is home free. If he files a motion to suppress,
however, which the court overrules, then counsel for the defendant will
say. more often tlian not: ''OK, let's take the record that Avns made
on the motion to suppress, and let it constitute a part of the record on
appeal."
And if there was a preliminary examination l^fore the magistrate,
that goes in as part of the record. The Government then offers what-
ever additional evidence they feel is necessary to show guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt, after which the court makes a finding.
If his finding is one of guilt, they go up on this record with the
legal question involved before the court of aii])oals. This saves a
tremendous amount of time that the jury oi-dinarily would have to
put in cooling their heels, because the normal way to do it would be
1288
to wait until the case g-oes to trial, where you get into the area of
motions to suppress at the time the evidence is otTered. Then it is
necessary to send the jury up to the jury room while you spend 2, 3,
4, or 5 hours pursuing- the motion to suppi'ess. The jury comes back
down if the motion is overruled, after which they go ahead and hear
the evidence. You may spend 2 days doing something j^ou should
have done in a half a day. The net result is the same, the finding is
either guilty or not guilty, and if the motion to suppress is overruled
the finding is usually guilty, because the defendant as a general rule
is guilty if the evidence is properly obtained.
Mr. Wiggins. Judge, may I interrupt ?
Judge Spears. Yes, sir.
]Mr. Wiggins. Do I understand these omnibus hearings are not
formal hearings presided over by a judicial officer?
Judge Spears. In my court they are presided over by a judicial
officer. I understand some judges have been using variations of it,
where tlicy use a magistrate or where tliey might use some other court
official. Personally, I don't think that is a good practice.
Mr. Wiggins. I understood you to say that in the last few years
you haven't ]iad any omnibus hearings, the counsel met informally
and resolved all of this.
Judge Spears. We don't have any because they are not necessary
any more. The lawyers laiow what they are supposed to do when they
get to their conference and usually their problems are ironed out at
this conference and there is very little, if anvthing, for the court to
decide unless a motion is pending which must be heard on the evidence.
Mr. Wiggins. Is the conference presided over by a judicial officer?
Judge Spears. The lawyers' conference ?
^Ir. Wiggins. Yes.
Judge Spears. jSTo, sir.
Mr. Wiggins. That is something apai't from the omnibus hearing?
Judge Spears. Absolutelv. The point I was trying to make was tl'sat
originally, to try to get the lawyers oriented and sold on this, tlie
judge — in my case, of course, it was my job to do this — had to persuade
them that it was the thing to do. But it was usually a tug of war
between them. However, now it is not that sort of tug of war, because
they do it voluntarily.
Chairman Pepper. In the early dnjs, you did preside over the omni-
bus hearino:?
Judge Spears. Yes, sir, everv aspect of it. And I think, Mr. Chair-
man— ^and this is mv personal opinion, based upon — since 1067, that
would be 6 years of using it — ^that if the judge considers this as a
second-class tvpe of procedure the lawyers might very well do the
same thina-. We have been over the country. I suppose we have spoken
at 25 or 30 seminars that the American Bar Association and others
have conducted, from one coast to the other, and the only ones who
ever tell me they have had trouble v.'ith it are those who delegated
the responsibilitv to a magistrate or someone else.
I just don't think it can be done that way, at least until after there
has been an experience factor involved, and the lawyers know what
they are supposed to do. I think it is something the judge has to do,
certainlv to start vrith.
Mr. Wtggins. Jud.o:e, isn't the trial judge the one who should con-
duct, this hearing, or just an available judge ?
1289
Judge Spears. You know, we have never been able to enjoy the
luxury of having another judge do our work for us. The case that
I get in the beginning, I carry through to the end. My feeling about it
would be that die judge who is going to try the case ought to conduct
everything. I think this is desirable. I wouldn't say it is absolutely
necessary. In our district we are so widespread, with seA^en divisions
and only five judges, that wo just have to do it all ourselves, because
we can't get others to do it for us.
Mr. WiGGixs. I take it there is a full right on the part of the defense
to raise other defenses that have not been circled in advance ; that he
is not foreclosed in any way ?
Judge Spears. Certainly, sure. And they understand this. This is
made clear to them. One thing that I do when they come in for
arraignment is to ask the U.S. attorney usually first, "Are you satis-
fied with the cooperation, you have gotten from the defense"; and in
almost ever}' instance, he will say, "Yes."
I ask the defendant the same thing, and he will say, "Yes." And I
ask them if there are any motions to be heard and they will tell me
whether there are or not and, if so, those motions are set. If they
enter into -stipulations — and you notice the form requires it — the stip-
ulations must be signed by the defendant and his attorney. I have the
defendant stand in open court and I explain to him what he has stip-
ulated to. and tell him that nothing he may say is binding upon him
and nothing his attorney may say is binding upon him unless it is
reduced to writing and signed by both the attorney and the defendant.
I explain in detail what the stipulation is, the fact the Government
is not required to prove theso things, and that it is accepted as proof,
and then ask him if this is what he wants.
Chairman Pepper. "WHien does the process begin with respect to
arrest ^
Judge Spears, "Well, our process begins when the man is indicted
and the clerk sends the notices of the arraignment.
You see, we have this plan to expedite criminal cases, which was
promulgated pursuant to rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Under this plan Ave must bring every defendant who is
in custody to arraignment within 20 days. You can see that the time
element there makes it necessary for us to handle all necessarj' pre-
liminary procedures within a limited period of time.
So Ave set up a period of 10 daA's from tlic date of notice, until the
date of the conference Avith counsel. With this time, plus the few days
that is needed after that for the lawyers to resolve any conflicts that
they may liaA'e, Ave find tliat is sufficient to get eA'erytliing in order
by the time the defendant is bi'ought in for arraignment.
Chairman Pepper. The defendant, if vou find the defendant doesn't
have his oAvn counsel, then, of coin-se, counsel is named for him ?
Judge Spears. Well, you see, tliis is done in the magistrate's court.
Chaii-man Pepper. I see.
Judge Spears. lie comes into the magistrate for his first arraign-
ment and the magistrate advises him of his constitutional rights, his
right to attorney, and so foith. If he doesn't have an attorne}^, then
the magistrate appoints one for him.
Sometimes he Avill tell the magistrate that he Avants to employ his
own attorney, but then it doesn't Avork out that Avay, and he Avill come
1290
into the district court and say he doesn't have one. We just have to
make allowances for that and give him additional time. But these
instances happen very infrequently.
Chairman Pepper. But what is the average length of time now
which elapses before the indictment of a defendant in your court and
the disposition of his case ?
Judge Spears. The figure I am going to give you is the median time
that the administrative office told us al^out for the last fiscal year.
But it is a little misleading and I want to explain it. It is 3 days, but
includes the period of time when the immigration cases were being
handled by the district court.
Those cases generally were handled in 1 day, the arraignment and
the sentencing were the same day. So you can see that having such a
large number of those cases would overbalance the other cases on the
doclvct. Actually, though, and I think realistically, it is about a month.
The last figure that we had that would give us an indication was nine-
tentlis of 1 month.
Chairman Pepper. Do you happen to have the percentage of cases
that comes before you which are tried by jury ?
Judge Spears. Well, it would have to be less than 3 percent. If it
was an}'- more than 3 percent, we just couldn't handle it. You get to
dealing with percentages and you can almost prove anything, but
someone came to the startling conclusion one time, and it is certainly
true, that if the number were increased fi'om three to six, then this
would double the amount of work that the judges had to do in the
courtroom.
And if you double the amourit of work we had to do in the court-
room, we would be working, I think, 8-hour shifts almost around the
clock. Hopefully, the}' would be only 8-hour shifts.
In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I might say for further amplifi-
cation of our situation, the judges in our district have the highest
weighted criminal caseload per judge in the United States. This may
sound a little on the bragging side, but I think the point needs to be
made that our performance record' is among the four highest in the
United States.
In civil cases, we have a median time of only 4 months between the
time a case is filed and disposed of. I know our record in this regard is
tops in the country.
We have wonderful, dedicated, hard-working judges, but that is not
to say there aren't other dedicated, hard-working judges over the
country. I think that Omnibus has helped us to do it. Even the judges
who don't use it to the same extent that I do benefit from it, because the
concept, the philosophy, is there. The Government attorneys now, just
as a matter of course, turn their files over to opposing counsel and
give them the benefit of this information whether there is full compli-
ance with Omnibus or not.
Chairman Pepper. Suppose we hear Mr. Gillespie and then we will
ask further questions of Judge Spears.
Statement of James Gillespie
Mr. Gillespie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As Judge Spears has told you, the Government prosecutor didn't
have a monopoly on suspicion. We felt the U.S. attorney had available
1291
to liim all tlio prosecutorial agencies of the larirest and most powerful
country in the world — the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and
Dangerous Drugs, the Bureau of Customs Agency Service, the Secret
Service, the Postal Inspectors — and our attitude was this: "Why
should we turn over anything to these people? Let's see how we can
get around it."
We met, had our little caucus about how we could get around this
judicial pressure to get involved in Onniibus.
Judge Spears has told you there was some judicial cajoling.
Mr. Harrison is not here today but he could liave told you he opposed it
vigorously, just as 1 did, except I didn't put it in writing. But finally
it dawned on us of the defense bar if we move, from tlie defense view-
point, if we could close a case faster, the sooner we could commence
Avork on other matters. Then we decided to exchange a little bit of
information. We gave lip service initially and I will confess this
because they say confession is good for the soul.
Then things started happening. I keep time charts. We found Omni-
bus was a timesaver. It eliminated these horrible boilerplate mo-
tions, and routine briefs.
But what does this do for the defense lawyer? He has a secretary
to pay, phone, rent, et cetera. So we eliminatecl unnecessary paperwork
by using the form ^Ir. Wiggins has in front of him.
*^It also eliminated something else. We see. Perry Mason movies and
we. see it today in some courts in some jurisdictions, the two lawyers
sparring around with their motions to suppress, motions to suppress
confession, evidence, and everything under the Sun, and they are only
doing one thing, they are sparring around, one to impress his boss, tiie
district attorney or U.S. attorney, the defense lawyer trying to im-
press his client who doesn't understand anything going on, and tlie
judge being bored because he knows what is happening. We don't
have tliat in our court.
I think this system has made better law3-ers out of our bar in San
Antonio. It has done on thing, when you get into a lawsuit, boil it
down to the critical issue. Don't play with it. Don't botlier the judge
with lialf a dozen different things. Get it down to the meat and nut of
the coconut because there is the heart of your lawsuit.
The Omnibus boils clown the case to the critical issues. Judge Spears
commented about this.
^Nfy clients involved in narcotic transactions, most never tell me
"Mr! Gillespie, I didn't have it, I have been framed.'' They almost
never say aiiA^thing like that. They will say, "That cop didn't have any
reason to bust me, to arrest me." So what do Ave have ? W^e liaA'e an
unlaAvful search-and-seizure issue. There is the critical issue, nothiiiij;
more, nothing less.
This checklist does one thing for the young laAA-yer. It acts as a
tickler for a lawyer Avho does not pi-actice criminal law, for the
neophyte laAvyer, and it brijigs back fond memori(>s of his criminal
hiAv course lie had in law school.
For tlie experienced trial laAA'yer in criminal cases, Avliat it does, it
provides an "instant motion,'' if you will. It shortens the time needed
to advise the assistant I^.S. attorney and tlie couit of the areas of
complaint.
We then have a conference of counsel. Mr. Harrison and I liave liad
a conference of counsel in lo minutes and we both knew what eacli
1292
-vranted. Because we were used to it. But there has to be a rapport be-
tween these two individuals. There has got to be integrity between
the two people and there has got to be trust.
If you reach a point, after the Government attorney turns over a list
of information to you, you can go to your client — and I will come to an
example in a minute — and you say that, based on the information the
Government is going to present, that you are doomed at a trial and
there is no way of convincing the jury that your client is innocent
beyond a reasonable doubt. You can present this information to your
client, and then he can make the determination of whether or not to
enter a plea of guilty or not guilty at this point.
This is his determination, not the defense counsel. If you do enter a
plea of not guilty, you know what you are being faced with. The de-
fense lawyer is not sitting back like you saw on the television series ;
here comes the prosecution and in the door walks the surprise witness.
We know who he is. So we don't have trial by ambush in the traditional
sense.
One thing Judge Spears did not tell you, and Mr. Morgan experi-
mented with this very famous case. This was the first overture toward
omnibus. In El Paso, Mr. IVIorgan was so impressed with the initial
concept he turned over 13 files to 13 different defense lawyers in the
El Paso division. They were so stunned by it, so amazed, they all
went to trial before their juries and there were 13 findings of guilty,
Mr. Rangel. How does the Government handle its undercover
agents or special employees ?
Mr. Gillespie. I was coming to that, Congressman. Pie does it this
way. In the FBI and Federal Bureau of Narcotics reports, they will
have a code number for — ^they call them "cooperating individuals"
now. Before they were called, I think, "special employees,"
Mr. Rangel. Special employees.
Mr. Gillespie. You are familiar with it. We have other names for
them, of course, but they are not for the record. But one time, one
case I will tell you about in a minute, the name of the confidential,
or the cooperating individual, was mentioned. The defendant was a
A-ery dangerout man. Pie was semipsychotic, so Mr. Harrison and I
did this and the court didn't know anything about it. We excised the
name of the informant and cut it out and presented the balance of the
report to my client. But the judge never knew anything about this
procedure. This is the way we handled that and, again, this has to be
within the spirit of cooperation with counsel for the Government.
Because you do want to protect — whether I might like the informer
or not is immaterial, the fact is, he is an employee of the Government,
and you don't want to see harm come to anyone, and that has happened
manj^ times in the past, as we all know.
Mr. Rangel. What I was really talking about, INIr. Gillespie is those
cases where the confidential or cooperative individual is actually the
]^erson that transacted the sale in order to make the case and where a
defense lawyer couldn't possibly convince his client to plead guilty
unless he saw who that person was that intended to testify against
him. And, of course, the Government doesn't want to expose the under-
cover nature of its agent unless it really has to at trial. How do you
handle that?
1293
Mr. Gillespie, It depends on the type of situation. If we are talking
about a sale, I am blessed, fortnnatel}', with clients who know if you
have — like goino; to a doctor, thoy don't tell me they have a headache
when their toe is coming down with gangrene. And in a narcotics
transaction, they will telfme whether or not they made a sale. I may
ask : ''Who did you make it to ? How did it come about ^ Was it going
to a third party ?"
He will know what it is. And I send out my investigator and talk to
that man. Or I confront the U.S. attorney : "John Smith is jour CI,
isn't he?" "Yes, he is."
"Where is he?'' I don't do it for any other purpose but to get an
investigator out to talk to that man to iind out whether or not he was
acting at that time as a confidential informer because there might be
raised the defense of accomodation agent or, whether or not there is
an entrapment involved.
Am I answering your question? Does that answer your question?
Chairman Pr.prER. Excuse me. Judge, Mr. Gillespie. We have to run
over and vote. You will have to excuse us. We will be back in just a
few minutes.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
3.1r. Gillespie, will you resume your statement ?
]Mr. Gillespie. Yes, sir.
I was commenting before the committee recessed that we don't haA'e
trial by ambush. As Judge Spears has stated we have many more
pleas of guilty, Avhich is quite true, but by the same token, you will
have a client — and Congressman Rangel as a prosecutor knows
that — you might have all of the facts available to you and the defend-
ant still insists on going to trial.
One case particularly comes to mind where a defendant was charged
with eml:>ezzlement from tlie Federal credit union where he swore he
hacbi't done it. We had a list of all of the Government witnesses. We
were prepared for them ; I questioned each one of them and used the
Government witnesses as character witnesses for my client.
When tlie case was terminnted, the jury was out for 8 hours and
at 5 minutes of 5 p.m. the following day, the trial court said "If the
jury doesn't come in by 5 p.m. I am going to declare a mistrial." They
found him guilty after 8 hours, but at least we interjected reasonable
doubt by the man's reputation from the Government's own witnrss(>s
in that particidar case. We couldn't have done that, I wouldn't dare
ask the Government's witness, president of the credit union, "Do
you know the defendant; do you know his reputation for honesty and
fair play, truth and veracity?" I wouldn't liave dared ask that if I
hadn't known the names of the Government's witnesses in the first
place.
This is a saving not only for the defendant nnd protecting his rights,
but a saving to the American taxpayer and. God knows, to the Federal
district courts, who are oveiburdenod thi'oiighout the country.
By way of further example, an individual came to me and in my
questionnaire sheet I filled out on the defendant, I asked him vcr}' deli-
cately, "Have you ever been under mental care?" — "Xo."
"Fiave you ever been seen by a psycliiatiist?" And he said, "Just out
of the State hospital." He had been hospitalized for 3 months.
1294
I talked to the county psychiatrist. The defendant was a schizo-
phrenic paranoid. I got the report from the county psychiatrist and
also the district attorney's office. This was a credit-card fraud case.
I immediately went to JNIr. Harrison. The judge had no idea these
back-of-the-scenes were going on. We presented the medical reports.
We walked into court, and to spare the defendant's feeling, the Gov-
ernment said ''Your Honor, Ave would like a psychiatric evaluation
of the defendant."— ''Granted."
It turned out the psychiatric report by the Government psychiatrist
was stronger. We made arrangements to have the defendant rehos-
pitalized in the State institution, because under Federal law, there is
no provision when it is shown that a defendant was incompetent at
the time of the connnission of the oti'ense. We rehospitalized him. The
moment the case was dismissed he was back in the State hospital.
All of this came about through the Omnibus procedure. The whole
time spent in court on this man's case took approximately 30 minutes.
I think this is a tremendous saving to the taxpayers of this country
and also it was beneficial to the client.
Chaii-man Pepper. Excuse me. Judge, this is a vote on final passage.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Chairman Pepper. The committee will come to order, please.
You may proceed, Mr. Gillespie.
Mr. Gillespie. I think the case I just finished with was the one on
insanity, which saved us a great deal of time. The next case involved
narcotics and machinegmis. It all boiled doAvn to several issues of a
confession that led to the discovery of the fruits of other crimes. Very
fortunately, we liad very fine officere in the particular case in questioii
who luid elicited the confession and the young man had had two addi-
tional Federal charges placed against him as a result of the confession
which was unlawfully induced, and two State charges.
As a result of our one hearing on the motion to suppress the con-
fession. Judge Spears, who in this particular case handled tliis matter,
granted the motion insofar as the confession was concerned and denied
another motion as to another part of the case, and as a result, the
defendant was convicted and we went up on appeal, and successfully,
I might add, o]i the one issue, on the one motion.
On pleas of guilty, I had one defendant who adamantly told me he
had not sold narcotics to any Federal agent. We excised the name of
the informant from the police report. I turned it over to my client and
he said, "Please try to negotiate something for me forthwith," and it
was done.
Another situation that Judge Spears mentioned was alibi. It wasn't
exactly a dismissal. It was a situation where a man was charged with
uttering counterfeit notes and the Government had used a panel of
pictures to show the victims. We prepared our own panel and, as a
result of the case, while the jury didn't buy our presentation, on appeal
it was found that the evidence was not sufficient to convict and revei'sed
and oi'dered the indictment dismissed.
But also in that case, interestingly, we pled alibi, Mr. Harrison's
investigators did check every one of the alibi witnesses and reported
back to me, and said, "Your alibi witnesses are good." He said, we
will have to concede that because I turned them over to him, just took
them to his office.
1293
Jiido-e Spears mentioned sonicthino- about the Jencks Act in a par-
ticular case. AVe liad a Gun Control Act case which was of a very
critical nrttin'i> and we liad an FBI I'cport wherein it was stated tlie
FBI had iiitcr\iewed a sergeant who had testilied or who had tokl
tliem the weapon in question was an automatic firing weapon. Imme-
diately we interviewed that sergeant and he advised us he never told
the agent that at alL
As a matter of fact, he had to change each round and, therefore, it
wasn't an automatic weapon. We obtained a judgment of acquittal,
based on the fact we interviewed the sergeant, and this was all under
Omnibus.
Chairman Pepper. That all would have come out later in court, but
after a trial and the delay.
Mr. Gillespie. Mr. Chairman, in that particular case, the prosecutor
v.'ho tried that case was a rclativeh' new prosecutor, and he believed
his FBI agent. He would not take the word of my witness who was
actually his witness. We had to present it before a jury and the trial
court granted the motion for judgment.
Chairmaji Pepper. Mr. Gillespie, do j'ou have to leave at the same
time the judge does?
'Sir. Gillespie. No, sir.
Chairman Pepper. May we interrupt you as to permit the judge
to leave at 4:20.
Do you have some questions, counsel ?
Mr. Nolde. I want to ask the judge how he was able to get the
defense bar as well as the prosecution to cooperate in participating
in this program ?
Chairman Pepper. You sent them all a Christmas card, didn't you,
judge?
Judge Spears. You laiow. I decided that I was going to have to sell
them a bill of goods, so I first called in the law3'ers I considered were
the leaders of the criminal bar, and I talked to them about it, and
asked them what they thought about it. I said "the U.S. Attorney's
Office now is willing to give this a trial and if you have the prose-
cutor willing to do it. that is about 85 pei'cent of the job. Will you
cooperate?'' They said "Yes," and then I said, "Well, help me sell it
to the other lawyers."
They did a good selling job themselves, but most of the real work
was done in that courtroom. For instance, some said, "Wliy should I
do this?" And I mentioned one a few moments ago about stipulating as
to the chain of custody, and the argument I gave them was what I
told you. I think the lawyers began to realize it was ridiculous to get
into court and have the Government parade witnesses there they
couldn't controvert in any sense of the word.
So the savings in time on that alone has been tremendous in the
narcotics field, ]\Iost of our cases are narcotic cases. Fifty-six percent
of our criminal docket in San Antonio are narcotics cases and they are
inci-easing every day.
!Mr. Raxgel. What percentage are marihuana cases ?
Judge Spears. You mean of narcotic cases? I'd say about 20-2.'>
percent. Most of them are heroin cases. ]\Iost of our marihuana cases
are handled in the State court. The only time we get the marihuana
cases is when we are dealing with large suppliers, and some of them
got pretty large. The last one we had was 4,000 pounds.
95-158— 73— pt. 3— —22
1296
Mr. NoLDE. Speakino- of the State courts, is there any reason why
this procedure couldn't be applied to the State courts and, particularly,
how do you answer the claim on the part of large city, busy prosecu-
tors that their assistants never even know the first thing about the case
until they walk in the court ? Could this work in that kind of a situa-
tion?
Judge SrEARS. I think it could and I am sure it does. There are some
States, I don't want to be specific about which ones they are, but the
one that comes to my mind, the State of Washington, I believe, put
in its rules provisions similar to the Omnibus procedure.
[Communications from Judge Spears, with enclosures concerning
omibus procedure in State of Washington, appears at end of his testi-
mony.]
Chairman Pepper. Justice Douglas told me there were innovative
programs in the Washington district.
Judge Spears. We were up there the last summer in Spokane and
talked to the lawyers and judges in the State of Washington about it.
You are going to get some opposition, no doubt about that. But I
think those who try it find it is worthwhile and continue to do so. Your
question to me is how you are going to get busy prosecutors to do it.
I don't know, unless the judges decide to be judges, and not automatons
or robots or machine men, and use their influence to get them to do it.
I don't see any reason why they can't do it if they exercise the power
and authority they have to do it.
He can't make a defendant reveal those things that the Constitution
protects him on, but he certainly could, I think, pressure defense
counsel into providing information that the defendant himself is
going to reveal at the time of trial.
]Mr. NoEDE. And you see no sacrifir-e of defendant's rights?
Judge Spears. I see no sacrifice of his rights if these are things he
is going to reveal in any event at the time of trial. As I say, you can't
make him testify, but he doesn't have a constitutional right to refuse
to reveal information that he proposes to reveal himself at the time of
the trial.
Mr. NoLDE. Could this be made mandatory ?
Judge Spears. I think to that extent it could be. And here, again,
you knoAv, I have been to so many places, I don't want to be specific,
but I believe the State of Washington has similar requirements in its
rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of Washington.
]\Ir. Raxgel. Is there any variation in the sentences that you can
detect that are given to those defendants' with lawyers who cooperate
with the system as opposed to those with lawyers that don't cooperate
and go to trial ?
Judge Spears. I can't answer the question because I don't have any
lawyers who don't cooperate. We are a pretty large bar. We have a
city of almost a million people, and I just haven't got any lawyers
that don't cooperate.
Mr. Eangel. After defendants mix with the general prison j)opula-
tion, are there any habeas corpus motions that come out ?
Judge Spears. Now, I am glad you mentioned this. Because the
number of 2,255 motions we have now is about 10 percent of what
they were before Ave started with this procedure. All of these latent
constitutional problems are disposed of through the Omnibus hearing.
How is the man going to claim he didn't have etfective counsel when
he has got a checklist there with every conceivable defense set out for
1297
him? And full o])portimity is afforded hiin to discuss his defenses
Avith his lawyer. This has "been a God-send as far as 2,255 motions,
which as you know is the Federal equivalent to habeas corpus, are
concerned.
We just simply do]i't have them. Most of what we have now are
section 1983 suits, in which prisoners claim they were mistreated in the
local jail.
Chairman Pepper. Judo-e. you have done such a fine job in explain-
ino; this to us. Are there other innovations you would recommend or
care to comment on ? We had here the suo-o-estion that there be more
nse of video tape in trials. Are there any other ? Can you tell us about
any other inno\ations you would reconnnend to expedite and improve
the administration of justice in tlie criminal system?
Judge Spears. Well, I think this helps us in order to conserve jury
time, to utilize the juries more effectively. For a number of years we
liave been impaneling a jury and selecting as many as 8 or 10 juries at
one time and having those juries come back at specified times to try
<'ases, rather than bring an entire jury panel in and have a jury selected
from that panel each time a jury is needed.
In other words, when we have 100 or 125 jurors in and we have 10
cases to try, we will select the 10 juries, or as many as we can at that
time, and then tell those jurors when they are to come back. We feel we
not only save much time and expense, but this is also more convenient
to the jurors.
Chairman Pepper. Can you estimate accurately enough when the
cases that are certainly going to be disposed of, to be able to do that,
tell them when to come back ?
Judge Spears. We can tell because by the time a case has been
omnibiised it has been explored by both sides and they know pretty
well whether that case is going to trial or not, and if so about how long
it will take to try it. This is another advantage of the omnibus proce-
dure. It just pliakes it all out.
Chairman Pepper. What have you, if anything, to say about how the
appellate procedures with which you have had experience might be
improved? We have had appellate judges here from State and Federal
courts. Have you any suggestions about what can be done to expedite
disposition of cases on appeal ?
Judge Spears. Well, I would hesitate to try to tell appellate judges
how to run their business, because I don't think they have any business
telling us how to run ours. I don't think they know enough al)out our
problems and I wouldn't propose to tell them how to solve theirs.
Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I am on the Board of the Federal Judi-
cial Center, and we have been exploring ways in which these mattere
can be expedited. T am sure the Judicial Center is going to have some
answers to these. I hope they will.
Chairman Pepper. One other question. We hear of proposals made
that we need to increase the severity of sentences, length of sentences
and the like. What, in your opinion, 'is the best deterrent to the commis-
sion of crime? It is long sentences, or likelihood of apprehension,
speedincss of trial ? What would you say ?
Judge Spears. I don't think it'is necessarily long sentences. I think a
speedy trial and tlie promptness of the punishment, if it is to come,
are probably the best deterrents. Other than this, I just don't know
what the answer is.
1298
Cliairninii Pepper. Judge, let me stop noAv. I want my colleagues to
have an opportunity.
Mr. R angel?
]\Ir. Rangel. I don't have any questions.
Cliairman Pepper. ]Mr. Winn ?
^Ir. WiNx. I just liave one question. Judge. It sounds to me that you
have done a real fine job. How are you publicizing your program down
there and how can you get further publicity out of it and have other
jurisdictions take it over?
Judge Spears. This is a real jDroblem because our court is busy and
it is hard for me to get aw^ay. But last year I traveled almost 40,000
miles fi'om one end of tlie countrv to the other, talking to various
groups of the American Bar Association and to judicial conferences,
in an effort to get the message across.
I can detect a change in philosophy. Five or six years ago, when I
would talk to a group of lawyers and judges about this, they would
look at me like T was crazy. Xow they will come back and sav wo are
doing this or we are doing that, which indicates they are having their
prosecutors turn over their files, to a lai'ge extent, to defense attorneys.
The only fallacy there, I believe, is the fact they are not having it
as a two-way sti-eet. They are not getting the coo])eration out of the
defense they ought to get arid they could get if they implemented the
entire program.
I think that is important. T tliink it is important for a defendant and
his lawyer to participate to tho point where they are giving up sonu^-
thing substantial in return for what thev get.
]Mr. WI^^x. But there is more talk at your national meetings about
swa]i])ing ideas?
Judge Spears. Yes. I was at a meeting of the metropolitan judc'es
here in Washington a few weeks ago where I gave them my pitch
about Omnibus. Afterward, as we went around the table for comments,
each one, to my utter surprise and amazeinent, said they were doing a
great deal of this themselves already. The T^.S. attorneys in most of
the courts were letting the defense have access to files.
I don't know, maybe T am naive, but it seems so simple to me, if you
have got to do it, why wait? And it is fair. That is all there is to it.
It is fair. The Supreme Court said it is, and Congress has said it is.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. ]Mann ?
INIr. INIaxx. Judge, JNIr. Nolde has expressed some of my concerns
and questions. How many Federal judges in San Antonio handle the
criminal cases?
Judge Spears. Two of us.
Mr. Maxx. The other judge is getting the same cooperation?
Judge Spears. Yes.
I might say, and I want to be completely above board about this,
he is not as sold on it as T am. But he does it.
Mr. Maxx. And the San Antonio Criminal Bar — you mentioned the
city of a rnillioii people — is how many lawyers?
Judge Spears. Everybody.
Mv. Maxx. Evervbody is on the list ?
Judge Spears. Everybody is on the list. The first thing I did when
I became a Federal judge was to dispense with the old practice of
having about 15 to 20 criminal lawyers represent all of the indigent
1209
defendants. I sot u]) a rotation system and put each attorney admitted
to practice in the Federal court on a separate card and we took them
in rotation. That is the way we still do it.
Chairman Pepper. You talked to some of these civil lawyers?
Judg-e Speaks. I want to say this. I didn't try criminal cases when
I was practicing law. I never was appointed in a criminal case, and
I felt like T missed a lot. But every lawyer in San Antonio who now
regularly tries cases in Federal court is a criminal lawyer, whether he
calls himself that or not.
]Mr. ]Maxx. I have more of an assertion or statement than I do a
question.
Given the atmosphere that prevails in San Antonio and the coopera-
tiveness that exists between the judge and the lawyers and the rapport
and the integrity and trust that was referred to. I can't help but be
pessimistic about that same atmosphere prevailing in the contentions,
multiple jutlge defense bar of many of the larger communities of this
country.
I think in the small communities it might happen.
I command you highly for having de^'eloped the procedure and
hope that it can be sold in other places, but I can't help but be pessi-
mistic about it.
Judge Spears. I can understand your pessimism. I think it is going
to be a gradual process of wearing it down. But I believe that lawyers
in Xew York, Philadelphia, are just like lawyers anywhere else. If
they find it is in their best interest and the best interest of their client
to do it. they will do it. If it helps them make more money, they will
do it. If it helps them to represent their clients better, they will do it.
But they have to be shown.
It is going to take judges who are willing to exert the effort to do it.
You can't do it by waving a wand and saying, "Change over now, boys."
You can't do it by saying. "Everybody step in line" and march off one,
two, three. You can't do it that way. You have to educate them and
work at it. But it has been worthwhile as far as my court is concerned.
Chairman Pepper. Judge, have you anything else to add ?
Judge Spears. No, just" to thank you and the members of this com-
mitteefor the opportunity to come here. I hope we have been of some
help in expressing what we believe to be solutions to some very vexing
problems. "VYe don't suggest this is a panacea ; it is not the cure all, but
I tell you it comes as close to being that as anything I know about.
And when you look at the Federal Criminal Rules of Procedure and
what they are requiring now, and you look at the Jencks Act, and you
look at the cases that have been decided by the Supreme Court, and
the implementation by the courts of appeal all over the country, you
can see we are coming to it anyway. "WTiy not now ?
I thinlv that it will be a great "day in our country when we do come
to the point where, instcad'of liandling cases on a piecemeal basis— I
don't want to use "plea bai-gaining" in the wrong context, but the kind
of plea bargainingi am talking about is the kind I don't think any of
us will be very happy about — but when this is the way cases are dis-
posed of and peopie"^ are run through like cattle instead of human
beings, then I think it is time for us to think in terms of the adminis-
tration of justice being a human experience and an effort to see justice
is done to everybody.
1300
Mr. Eangel. Judo-e, I would just like to underline anotlier aspect of
the problem "\ve face in attempting to equalize the economic status of
defendants who come into court trying- to get justice. One of the sad
things we find in the city of New York is that the poor cannot afford
to retain counsel with experience in practice before the Federal courts
and who is fully aware of Federal court procedures. The wealthier^
more successful criminals are able to find people to make the necessary
motions in order to protect the defendant's rights.
It just seems to me that this process of Government meeting defense
halfway in assisting them as to what is available and looking for fair
play on the part of defense counsel, even outside of the fact that it
allows the judges to clear their calendar and all of the benefits that
flow to the defendants from this, that in the first instance, it allows
the defendant to believe that he can come before the bar of justice
almost on equal standing with any other defendant.
Judge Spears. I think we have to recognize the fact the Government
has to meet the defendant a little more than halfway, because the Gov-
ernment is in possession of the information that the defendant maybe
doesn't have. I think it is a two-way street, but I don't mean each lane
is 50-50. I think the Government or the prosecutor ought to give up
more than he gets.
But I think in order to make it work, the defense should also be pre-
pared to give up something.
Mr. Eaxgel. Mr. Gillespie touched on it, but in many District At-
tornej-'s offices, they pay so little in terms of salary and provide no
money for investigative resources, that the only thing the young law-
yer can look forAvard to is the Perry Mason, hidden information, type
of thing. Given the handicaps imposed bj^ limited budget, it is a re-
markable job that is performed by most prosecutors offices.
Judge Spears. I can say, as the judge, God bless the lawyers. With-
out the lawyers the judges can't do anything. But if he has cooperative
attorneys who are real professionals and who are interested and will-
ing to do the right kind of job then the court can operate more
smoothly.
Charman Pepper. Judge, the time you said you would have to depart
has arrived. On belialf of the committee, we want to express our pro-
found gratitude to you for coming here, to tell you how much we ap-
preciate the contribution you made to the work of this committee. We
are hoping that what we have discussed and put on the record is going
to be helpful to the lawyers all over the country.
I am going to speak to the Florida Bar Assocation a little while later,,
in the month of May I believe it is. This is one of the things I am
going to pLit principal emphasis upon.
So I wouid just like to say, if they were giving a medal of honor to
judges for the performances of their services l3eyond the call of ordi-
nary duty, 3^ou would be certainly entitled to it.
Judge Spears. You are very kind. Thank you.
Chairman Pepper. We hope you have a pleasant trip home, Judge.
Mr. Gillespie, we appreciate your waiting. Now that the judge has
finished, would you go ahead with any other comments you would like
to make.
!Mr. Gillespie. Yes, sir.
1301
This follows somethino; alone; with Congressman Range! about tlie
poor defendants. I had the unfortunate and unpleasant, and I hope
ne^er to be repeated, experience of being appointed in the Del I\io
Division in a multiple conspiracy case — and 1 can cite the case right to
this dsij — being advised that the case was going to take 2 weeks from
motions to termination of trial on the merits.
I think the I^.S. attorney fou)ided the indictment in this district in
this division because it was a border communit}- of single-oflice
lawyers.
The result was, things got so cantankerous we couldn't get any infor-
mation out of the U.S. attorney and I personally prepared and tiled
over 1-12 motions for 21 defendants. I wasn't appointed for 21, just
one. Tlie last motion being a motion for change of venue. And when
the local paper came out, it called it the '"Federal Superbowl," and
called tlie defense lawyers the "Dirty Dozen."
The case was then transferred, not to San Antonio, which would
have been a central location for most lawyers involved in the case —
some were retained, I might add — the transfer was to El Paso, 600
miles from home. In that case we had a situation under the Jencks
Act where an FBI report came in at 4 :15 in the afternoon, and I made
a suggestion to his honor, who was not Judge Spears, if we could
haA^e a Xerox copy of the agent's report overnight, and then we would
be in a position for the following day to pursue a meaningful cross-
examination and thereby eliminate time.
"Well, the judge said, "No, you will follow the Jencks Act, you will
let the man testify and then the report will be turned over to each
individual laAvyer."'
And, of course, the attitude of the defense laAv^'er is, "All right,
Judge, if that's the way you want to play it, we can play it, too."
Each defense lawyer got up after the agent had testified, got be-
fore the podium, and started reading the 55-page, legal-sized document,
single-spaced, margin-to-margin, 45 minutes, and answered, "Xo
questions, Your Honor." That took 8 hours. That was a waste of tax-
I)avers' money and we were just being onery.
But this did not have to be, had we used omnibus we would liave to
report prior to trial. This was a waste of time. Omnibus would have
saved so much here.
Omnibus would have saved so much.
One of the things I think — something was mentioned about whether
or not it worked in the State procedure. In Bexar County we have a
monumental caseload. We have underpaid district attorneys, young
chaps out of law school, the first time they see the case is when it comes
up.
Xow, what I have done, for example, I had a Preston versus Cali-
fornia type of situation, and I could have walked into the courtroom
and raised it for the first time after 3 days of trial, 2 days of voir dire
examination of the juiy, 1 week of the county's time, and it Avould have
been a sensation in the papers. But instead, again (1)1 "was paid to
try the case whether I tried it for a week or 5 minutes. I went to the
prosecutor, I showed him the facts in the case from the police oflicer's
report, a copy of tlie examiniiig trial which he had ncA-er read, and
last, a small brief, about 5 pages, the Preston-type research.
1302
And he said, "My golly, I can't go on with this case. This is the
end of the case." I said, "Well, I thonght I wonld bring it to your
attention."
The case was dismissed. It saved him embarrassment, the county
money, and my client the trauma of a trial.
But this is known as omnibus by the back door. This was one-way
omnibus by the defense.
In a recent murder case I was appointed on, I attempted to do
sometlxing with the prosecution but he was trying to impress me with
what a fine lawyer he was and he was well prepared, but he didn't
know about two eyewitnesses, in what we call a misdemeanor mur-
der case, a little bar affair. But we had two eyewitnesses. He wouldn't
tell me the time of day. He hid out his witnesses in Houston, Tex.,
200 miles from San Antonio. We were unable to obtain continuance.
I let him put on his case and then brought in a deputy sheriff from
another county, a very respected deputy, who had observed the in-
cident with his date, who was not his wife, unfortunately, and as a
consequence, the district attorney was stunned, and the jury right-
full y found the young 1 ady not guilty.
It was a waste of time, my office staff time, my investigator's time,
and it embarrassed the district attorney's office because their in-
vestigation was poor.
Mr. Rangel. What statutory authority do lawyers and judges and
prosecutors ha^^e to do what you are doing down in Texas ?
Mr. Gillespie. The omnibus ?
Mr. Eangel. Eight.
Mr. Gillespie. The gentleman that just left, that is the authority.
He makes a suggestion. He made a suggestion. Congressman, and he
tried to show us how this could work and it does work. I can't begin
to tell you with all my heart — and he is not here and doesn't know
what I am saying — but it works so effectively on both sides of the
street between us and there is no authority for it, there is no written
mandatory statement— and I don't think Judge Spears left you with
a sheet you get in the mail on every case, "Will you and your client
cooperate in the omnibus procedure." You can answer, "No," and
you proceed under the old Federal Eules of Criminal Procedure.
INIr. Ra^-gel. The fact it is effective has nothing to do with the fact
that it flies in the face of long-established tradition ?
Mr. GiLLESPFE. That is correct. But traditions must sometimes yield
to the changes of a fast moviufr world.
My. Rangel. Something like the judge says, lawyers have to co-
operate and there has to be a feeling that, it is a fair process among the
lawvers before one. one would start venturing, walkiuEf into a nrosecu-
tor's office and leaving sm.iling. saying, "I have cooperated," and clients
start looking at you a little funnv.
Mr. Gillespie. You have to be very cnrefid about that. There is a
sense of tact and dii^lomacy in dealing with the clients. You know from
actunl experience there are neople who are criminals and there are
citizens cansrht in the commission of criminal acts. A man who nor-
in-Tlly would not commit, sav an embezzlement offense, has gambling
debts, steals and says "I will pay it back." You have seen that. These
l^eonle are decent people caught and yielded to temptation one time,
and then the other classification is the true criminals, who are going
1303
to pui-sue a life of crime repirdloss and you have to be very careful
on how you explain the Omnibus procedure to them. Very frankly,
I tell my clients, "We are going to go through the Onmibus procedure,"
and the response of my client is, "Anything you say. You are the at-
torney." That is what I am hired for.
One thing, how does it work through the Nation? We talked in New
Orleans one time to the New Orleans County Bar Association. Total
rejection by both sides. "No, it will never work. I won't tell that pros-
ecutor a thing."
I was in New Orleans for a sentencing in early February of this
year, talking to a defense lawyer, who grabbed the prosecutor walking
by and said, "Hey, Charlie, let's do a little Omnibus on that thing, on
that Smith thing."
They don't have this procedure, but this is what he was saying. I
said, "What do you mean? What is the Omnibus thing?'' He said, "We
exchange information, try to get to the bottom of the whole thing."
He didn't know who I was at all, except as another defense lawyer.
Mr. Rangel. You mentioned the hardened criminal. Wouldn't you
say most of the hardened criminals who have been indicted by the
U.S. Government recognize the}' have got to be convicted 99 out of 100
percent of the time ?
Mv. Gillespie. I think the conviction rate by the Department of
Justice is 98 percent.
Mr. Rangel. Well, it seems to me, it has been my experience with
narcotic cases, whether you told the defendant your case or not, he
himself knows that it is direct sale or several direct sales, and that the
only way he can possibl}' beat it is a jury trial. How are you able to
avoid that ?
Mr. Gillespie. To avoid the jury trial ? That is his election. I will
tell him what the facts are, make an outline of the summary of each
vritness' testimony, and he makes the election.
INIr. Rangel. He agrees the Government has the case ?
Mr. Gillespie. But if he wants to try it, let him try it.
Mr. Rangel. This stipulatioii you may want to enter into about tlie
chain of possession of the drugs. Some defense lawyers just stay on
that for 3 hours, saying it was missing for half an hour somewhere,
especially in New York where we lost $73 million worth of drugs, you
know.
Mr. Gn.LESPiE. I heard about that.
But we have the business — remember Sam Leibowitz from your
area once said a good defense lawyer is 90 percent sweat and investiga-
tion. The first thinff I do if I go into a foreign jurisdiction, I learii who
my judge is and find ever\-t,hing out about him, about the prosecutor,
and the witnesses. And in the narcotics case, about the chemist. In
my community the custom* chemist is a classmate of mine from
Tulane. majored in chemistry, has his masters degree. I have been
throuirh the testing procedure with him. To cross-examine him is truly
a waste of time.
At VandGUi)erg Air Force Base m Juno of 1971 the Air Force hired
a criminologist to give the test in a mariliuana case. I found out before
I went in on the 39a session, which is preliminary examination in the
military, that he had never had any chemistry in college. He told me
later he fr-lt distressed because he never proved the contrabrand issue
was marihuana. He couldn't conclusively say.
1304
Mr. Ra>:gel. You liave proved my point. You know your business
and you know your community and you know tlie background and
reputations of a lot of Government witnesses. " - ' '^
Mr. Gillespie. If I go to another community, Congressman, I will
find out about the reputation of the cliemist, t;he prosecutor, and the
court.
Mr, Eangel. But those things the Government is asking the clef end-
ant to stipulate to because it is just assumed that the Government can
and will prove it, without going into the integrity or background of
the chemist. Many times the contraband changes 10 hands before it
reaches that court. And if this occurs, which is still another variable
to work with, are you going to spend some time on each one of those
sets of hands?
INIr. GiLLEsriE. If that is all I have, I won't stipulate. If my client
says, "Look, I don't care what you said, I read the report, I want my
day in court." And we had a case like that in San Antonio. He didn't
believe the undercover police officer. Ho said he was going to lie and
he said, "I v»'ant to hear him lie."
Mr*. Rangel. Does he get more time if he is convicted than the per-
son who goes through Omnibus ?
]Mr. Gillespie. I am glad you asked that question, because it depends
on what court you appeared in front of. You can go before Judge
Spears and spend a week before him, as I did in a Dyer Act case. My
client was found guilty and given a suspended sentence. But other
courts charge rent. If the client goes to trial in a plea of not guilty
and is found guilty, we know you are going to be charged rent, and I
think it is unfair.
Judge Spears' philosophy is every man is entitled to his day in
court. I wish the other judges would follow that because then 3'ou come
to the balancing of whether or not to go to trial.
You know, this nebulous idea of being charged for time in court if
found guilty hovering over your head and you must tell your client
this, if you bring it out in the open there is not a judge in the country
would say he would do a thing like that. But you, as a prosecutor,
know that is quite true. But that is a problem when you come with
that.
Chairman Pepper. Mr. Gillespie, you obviously are a very able and
experienced defense counsel. You have had a lot to do with this sort of
thing. Looking at it f 10m the standpoint of this committee, and as you
have been testifying here today, to improve the criminal justice system
in the country, what innovations, other than that one you so well
pointed out today, would you recommend that could and should be
made ?
Mr. Gillespie. All right, sir. The Federal Rules of Criminal Pro-
cedure, rule 5, which has to do with preliminary examination of per-
sons charged with Federal offenses. In the Southern District of New
York, there is no such thing as examining trial, is there, Congressman ?
I\Ir. R AKGEL. It has been a long time.
Mr. Gillespie. They don't have it. It is on the books, but in the
Southern District of Xew York they have a continually running
grand jury. As a consequence, no defendant ever gets an examining
trial.
Mr. Rangel. Are you talking about a pretrial hearing ?
1305
Mr. Gillespie. Yes, sir.
l^reliminary examination, I think is tlie formal term for the rule.
yir. Raxgel. They have it and they don't use it. Tliey indict.
]Mr. Gillespie. Con<rressman, my attitude is this. If Congress in-
tended to give the defendant the right to preliminary examination
then he ought to have a right to it. If Ave are not going to have it, like
you do in the Southern District of Nevv' York, then go ahead and
eliminate it so avc don't quibble about it.
]Mr. Rangel. I agree.
Mr. Gillespie. 1 strongly feel if it is on the books it should be made
mandatory. If the man says, "I want a prclnninary examination,"
he should be entitled to it, and any defense lawyer who doesn't use the
right to preliminary examination in the jurisdiction where it can be
used is not worthy of his title as defense lawyer.
Mr. Rangel. You are talking about prior to indictment, coming
from tlie grand jury ?
Mr. Gillespie. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rangel. If defense counsel makes all the motions he wants in
tlie southern district of New York like any other district, the D.A.
goes in and asks for indictment.
Mr. Gillespie. Right.
jSIr. Rangel. You are saying to hold up the indictment ?
Mr. Gillespie. No, sir. I am saying we have the rule on the books,
let's use it. If we are not going to use it, like you do in the Southern
District of New York, eliminate it from the rules. But don't put it
like the carrot out to the defendant. Here is where we will know what
probable cause or what evidence is going to be presented against an
accused. Let's eitlier eliminate it or make it something meaningful and
not this fraud of having it on the books, where it looks good in writing,
and is never used, like in your district.
Chairman Pepper. What else, then ?
Mr. Gillespie. I can't think of a thing.
ChaiiTTian Pepper. Let me ask you about appellate procedures. You
have ap])ealed many cases, I am. sure.
Mr. Gillespie. Yes, sir; unfortunately.
Chairman Pepper. You have had a lot where you haven't appealed,
I am sure of that.
Mr. Gillespie. Yes, sir.
Chairman Pepper. You were reversed on a lot of them, I arn sure,
wliere you had the conviction below. But have you any suggestions as
to how the appellate procedure may be simplified and expedited?
Mr. Gillespie. Yes, sir. The elimination of the appendix that we
arc 7-pf|uired in any retained case. Let me make the differential, for ex-
ample. Ijetwccn a retained employment and an indigen.t appeal. If we
are employed to appeal, we have to jDrepare an appendix. You could
just appeal a case and present CAerything to tho. aiipellate court. You
wouldn't have this problem. You Uy to simplify it and make it more
dif!icult to appeal. You ."-o into a lot' of machinery, instead of present-
ing the transcript, appellant's brief, and appellee's brief. That would
make it simpler.
Chairman Pp.pper. One of the judges suggested and the charge of the
court in a Federal court — the judge's comments on the evidence.
Mr. Gillespie. Not in our district.
1306
Cliairman Pepper. They don't?
Mr. Gillespie. No, sir. In California, in one court I watched a trial
there, waiting to go to trial, and the judge did not comment up there.
And in Chicago I attended trials there and the judge never commented.
Chairman Pepper. Most of them don't, do they ?
Mr. Gillespie. Most of them don't do it.
Chairman Pepper. In England they put great store upon that in the
appellate court. Sometimes they have a procedure by which the trial
judge's charge to the jury contains a rather lengithy and elaborate
comment on the testimony. It gives a pretty good review of what the
evidence in the lower court was to the appellate court. They use that
rather extensively in lieu of the complete transcript of record. At least
in the preliminary application for the right of appeal.
Mr. Gillespie. I have one other suggestion, Mr. Chairman, before I
forget it. That is in Federal court, the rule is that the charge is orally
given to the jury. Even though in my district it is prohibitive, we can-
not speak to a juror after the termination of a case, or forever and ever.
I think if the complaint that I get through the grapevine, shall I say, is
the fact, they can't remember all of the judge's charge and especially
in a complex piece of litigation involving a stock fraud swindle. Most
la\^^ers don^t understand it, so how can the layman understand it
when the judge reads it off ? I would suggest it be done in writing and
the jury have a copy of the court's instructions. In that fashion, the
jury would have the law in front of it. It would help some. But just
hearing it, they are not going to get anything out of it. They generally
don't.
Chairman Pepper. We had one judge, a court of appeals judge in one
of the circuits, who recommended the use of video tape. He showed
video tapes here of a confession, where a prosecuting attorney was
questioning a defendant in the presence of a police officer, and in the
presence of this video tape operator. Apparently, the question came
up later as to whether or not that was a voluntary confession. And by
giving the appellate court an opportunity to see and hear that de-
fendant at the time he gave the confession, of course, would be very
helpful to the court in making tliat decision.
Mr. Gillespie. I agree with that. I have attempted to sell to our
local police that they put on in every possible investigation a small
cassette tape recorder when taking a confession, especially in the
crimes of violence. They could hand the cartridge to the prosecutor
and here is the whole confession, the Mlmnda warning, read the state-
ment to him, yes, yes, yes, you would not have any motion for suppres-
sion of that confession, but they won't do it.
Chairman Pepper. Also, one of these judges who testified here rec-
ommended that it not be necessary to wait till the transcript of the
record is all written up hy tlie reporter, whicli takes sometimes 90 days
or more. Do you think that most criminal cases could be disposed of on
appeal without the necessity of the whole transcript of record being-
laid before the appellate court?
Mr. Gillespie. It would depend on the type of case, Mr. Chairman.
I have a case on appeal at the present time. I think the whole record
is 50 pages. It involves a motion to suppress, and Judge Spears was
the hearing judge and the whole issue goes to the affidavit, to the com-
plaint of the search warrant, which I think is wrong, the court says
1307
it is right. I am appealing on that one point. I have already sent that
to tlie court of appeals.
Chairman Pepper. It would cost a lot of money and take lot of time
to have all of the testimony about that case transcribed by the reporter.
Mr. Gillespie. Had I gone to a jury: but it went up oji one point
only. I think the appellate court on the particular case had to hear
the testimony or see the testimony of the magistrate who issued the
search warrant, the testimony of the officer who swore to the first page
of the affidavit, but not to the second page where it was critical and of
tlie cross-examination of the magistrate by ''his honor" and the prose-
cuting attorney, which I think it Avas improper and it did not prove
anything except the search warrant was improperly issued without
probable cause.
Chairman Pepper. Don't the rules permit the taking up just essen-
tial parts of the record '^
jNIr. Gillespie. Yes, sir. and that is what we are doing in this case.
The court order, the hearing on the motion to suppress, and the find-
ing. "We agreed and stipulated everything in the hearing on the motion
to suppress would be used on the merits and stipulated to jurisdic-
tion and then appealed.
Chairman Pepper. One other thing. "What general observation would
you make about what might be done to reduce crime in the country ?
Do you find that crime in general is committed by relativelv few peo-
ple, most of whom are repeaters, or a large number of whom are re-
peaters ?
Mr. Gillespie. Sir. we are going through an era in this country and
1 don't know how to describe it. I practice any place where I am hired,
you understand, but I went down to the southern district of Texas,
Laredo division, presided over b}^ the chief judge, the Honorable Ben
Connally, I saw youngsters, doctors' sons, lawyers' sons, dentists' sons,
professional people charged with possessions of such quantities of
marihuana that j^ears ago would have been unheard of. Yet, I don't
think the severity of the punishment, for example, under 21 U.S.C. 174,
176(A), which I know Mr. Rangel is very familiar with, minimum-
uiaxinuun type of sentences did any good. The reduction of the sen-
tences hasn't done any good. What I am saying is I don't know the
answer either. Unless it is education Avith youngsters in school.
Chairman Pepper. We had testimony here the other day that in the
city of Philadelphia- — this was by one of their local judges — that young
people under 18 years of age committed 25 percent of the muixlers, 40
percent of the robberies, and 39 percent of the burglaries. Imagine now,
young people under 18 years of age. We have had the figure that, I be-
lieve, 25 percent in general of the country, 25 percent of the serious
crimes or index crimes committed by people under 18; 40 percent, I
believe, under 21 ; 51 percent under 25 ; and about 60 percent under
28. So that you get two-thirds of the crime of serious character in this
country in general committed by people under 28 years of age.
Mr. Gillespie. Agreed.
Chairman Pepper. I have seen the figures that in those who have
long-term sentences in prison, that they average three periods of in-
carceration prior to the fourth one.
Mr. Gillespie. Where he can become well educated in other areas
of sophistication.
130S
Chairmcan Pepper. One of the subjects we are very miicli concerned
about is the penal s^^stem, or the correctional institution program.
Have 3^ou any comment to make on that? What kind of sentences,
what kind of action with respect to people charaed with crime by the
courts is most effective in dealing with the problem of crime ?
Mr. Gillespie. Again, ]Mr Chairman, it depends whether you are
asking about crimes of violence or hardened criminals.
Ch.airman Pepper. I am talking piimarily about serious crime. "What
can be done with what we call index crimes, burglary, robbery, and
rapes ?
Mr. Gillespie. I Imow since the al)olition of the death sentence in
Texas, assault with firearms in my State carried a minimum of 5 yeare
and a maximum penalty of death, and we have had a monumental
increase in our community in crimes of robbery by assault with fire-
arms. Because, I consider a robber probably one of the most dangerous
type criminals because he is violent, he is premeditated in his conduct,
and he won't hesitate to kill if you resist him. This is one of the areas —
T am a defense lawyer, but I feel I can't imagine any more penalty in
our State than the death penalty. We don't have it now, of course, and
I don't know what to do aliout it.
Tlie Sigmon Service Statioji, Shamrock Service Station, and Stop-
and-Go Ice Houses are constantly robbed. If I come home latxi at night
and stop at the Stop-and-Go and buy a package of cigarettes they look
at me with very jaundiced eyes at 11 o'clock at night, and they stay
open until midnight. I don't think the severity of punismnent is the
answer.
You recall, Mr. Chairman, in England, to show an example, they
would hang pickpockets and they had to stop tlie public hanging be-
cause too many people were having their pockets picked.
I can't give you the answer. I am sorry.
]Mr. Eaivtgel. Didn't you say the penalty was a deterrent ? I thought
you were about to say that, and then we went back to England.
Mr. Gillespie. It doesn't deter. I don't know what deters, I certainly
believe the statute deters narcotic transactions among young people.
Mr. Raxgel. Were you saying that since the abolition of the death
penalty, you have found a sharp increase in armed robbery ?
Mr. Gillespie. Yes, sir.
]Mr. Rangel. You do believe there is a connection ?
Mr. Gillespie. There has got to be because of this sharp rise. Our
district attorney, for example, won't negotiate a plea on an armed
robbery because the publicity in the newspapers is so violently opposed
to any negotiation involving a crime of violence, such as armed rob-
bery, which is very prevalent. Tliey are more prone to be kindly to a
man charged with a bari'oom killing than an armed robbery. But those
crunes are different than a robbery. Two people in a bar can get into
an argument and one suddenly pokes the other one, who has a cardio-
vascular defect, and he dies. That is certainly not murder one. It's
aggravated assault in my State. But robbery, I think, there is a definite
indication the robber knows if he is caught he is not going to be facing:
a jury if they can impose a death penalty.
Chai rman Pepper. Mr. Winn ?
]Mr. WiN^r. No questions.
Chairman Pepper. INIr. Mann ?
Mr. ]Mann. No, thank you, ]Mr. Chairman.
1309
Chairman Pepper. Anything else, IMr. Rangel ?
]Mr. Rangel. Xo.
(.^hairman Pepper. Counsel ?
]Mr. No7.DE. You testified tliat the result of this procedure is to
speed up the system and that defense attorneys can therefore repre-
sent more clients. I take it there is more to it than that. "What incen-
tiAe would the defendant's attorney have in participating in this
omnibus procedure, particularl}- where the defendant is clearly guilty?
What would he have to gain by full disclosure ?
Mr. Gillespie. What he would have to gain, if your client, for exam-
ple told you — in the embezzlement situation I discussed earlier, the
man told me he was not guilty. He Avas assisted by the fact that we
gave him his day in court as he desired. I was able to use the Gov-
ernment's own Avitness to paint him a little different color than that
he Avas an evil person, and I used the Government's Avitnesses. I had
to use whatever means available that were ethical and legal. His rights
were protected, he insisted on testifying, and said he didn't do it. And
Tuitil this day, he tells me he didn't take that mone}'. I have knoAvn
him for about 5 years noAv. He Avas giA'en a Aery short sentence. But
I Avas able to use the GoA'ernment's Avitness and Ave gaA'e them hand-
writing exemplars and in return that did not shoAV he did do it.
But there is no giving up of any defendant's rights. If n\y clients
don't Avant to participate, I just tell the court we don't participate in
it and that is the end of it.
Mr. NoLDE. How did Judge Spears manage to persuade the defense
lawyers to cooperate Avith him ?
Mr. Gillespie. The same magic any Federal judge uses when he
asks you to do something. It is merely a request. And when I was
honored to appear before this comniittee, I was preparing an appeal
])rief and Juclge Spears asked me, "You Avould like to go to Wash-
ington ? I said, "Yes, your Honor." That is the magic.
]Mr. Xolde. Any judge with the desire ?
]Mr. Gillespie. It has to be a strong judge. If a judge says, "We
are going to utilize this, and this is Avhat Ave are going to do, gen-
tlemen, I appreciate your cooperation," you will get it done.
INIr. jSTolde. Thank you very much.
Chairman Pepper. 'Mr. Gillespie, Ave certainly thank you. You have
given us most interesting and most helpful testimony. We appi^eciate
it. We hope you haven't lost too much time in the preparation of that
brief.
Thank you A'ery much. I hope you liaA'e a pleasant trip home.
Mr. Gillespie. Thank you.
[The following checklist and prepared statement of ]\Ir. Harrison,
previously referred to, Avere received for the record :]
Form 0II-3 ; G-28-G7 ; Revised 5-15-69.
United States District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio
Division
United States of America v.
Defendant
Criminal No. •
instructions
If an item numbered below is not applicable to this case, then counsel will note
the same in the margin opposite the item number with the letters "N.A."
1310
A. DISCOVERY BY DEFENDANT
(Circle Appropriate Response)
1. The defense states it (has) (has not) obtained full discovery and (or)
has inspected the government file, (except)
(If government has refused discovery of certain materials, defense coun-
sel shall state nature of material:
)
2. The government states it (has) (has not) disclosed all evidence in its posses-
sion, favorable to defendant on the issue of guilt. In the event defendant is not
satisfied with vfha.t has been supplied him in response to questions 1 and 2
above then :
3. The defendant requests and moves for — ^( Number circled shows motion
requested)
3(a) Discovery of all oral, written or recorded statements or memorandum
of them made by defendant to investigating- officers or to third parties and in
the possession of the government. (Granted) (Denied)
3(b) Discovery of the names of government's witnesses and their statements.
(Granted) (Denied)
3(c) Inspection of all physical or documentary evidence in government's
possession. ( Granted ) ( Denied )
4. Defendant, having had discovery of Items #2 and #3, (requests and moves)
(does not request and move) for discovery and inspection of all further or aihU-
tional information coming into the government's possession as to Items #2 and
#3 between this conference and trial. (Granted) (Denied)
5. The defense moves and requests the following information and the govern-
ment states — (Circle the appropriate response)
5(a) The government (will) (will not) rely on prior acts or convictions of a
similar nature for proof of knowledge or intent.
(1) Court rules it (may) (may not) be used.
(2) Defendant stipulates to prior conviction without production of wit-
nesses or certified copy. (Yes) (No)
5(b) Exiiert witness (will) (will not) be called :
(1) Name of witness, qualification and subject of testimony, and reports
(have been) (will be) sufvplied to the defense.
5(c) Reports or tests of physical or mental examinations in the control of
the prosecution (have been) (will be) supplied.
5(d) Reports of scientific tests, experiments or comparisons and other reports
of experts in the control of the prosecution, pertaining to this case (have been)
(will be) supplied.
5(e) Inspection and /or copying of any hooks, papers, documents, photographs
or tangible objects which the pro.secution — (Circle appropriate response)
(1) obtained from or belonging to the defendant, or
(2) which will be used at the hearing or trial, (have been) (will be)
.supplied to defendant.
5(f) Information concerning a prior conviction of persons whom the prosecu-
tion intends to call as witnesses at the hearing or trial (has been) (will be)
supplied to defendant.
5(g) Government (will) (will not) use prior felony conviction for impeach-
ment of defendant if he testifies.
Date of conviction Offense
(1) Court rules it (may) (may not) be used.
(2) Defendant stipulates to prior conviction without production of wit-
nesses or certified copy. (Yes) (No)
5(h) Any information government has, indicating entrapment of defendant
(has been) ( will be ) supplied.
B. MOTIONS REQUIRING SEPARATE HEARING
6. The defense moves — (number circled shows motion requested)
6(a) To suppress physical evidence in plaintiff's possession on the grounds
•of — (Circle appropriate response)
(1) Illegal search and seizure
(2) Illegal arrest
1311
6(b) Hearing on motion to suppress physical evidence set for :
(Defendant will file formal motion accompanied by memorandum brief with-
in days. Government counsel will respond within days thereafter.)
6(c) To suppress admission or confessions made by defendant on the grounds
of — (Circle appropriate response)
(1) Delay in arraignment
(2) Coercion or imlawful inducement
(3) Violation of the Miranda Rule
(4) Unlawful arrest
(5) Improper use of lineup (Wade, Gilbert, Stovall decisions)
(6) Improper use of photographs
6(d) Hearing to suppress admissions, confessions, lineup and photos is set
for:
(1) Date of trial, or
(2)
(Defendant \\'ill file formal motion accompanied by memorandum brief within
days. Government counsel will respond within days thereafter.)
The government to state:
6(e) Proceedings before the grand jury (were) (were not) recorded.
6(f) Transcriptions of the grand jury testimony of the accused, and all per-
sons whom the prosecution intends to call as w^itnesses at a hearing or trial
(have been) (will be) supplied.
6(g) Hearing re supplying transcripts set for
6(h) The government to state:
(1) There (was) (was not) an informer (or lookout) involved;
(2) The informer (will) (will not) be called as a witness at the trial;
(3) It has supplied the name, address and phone number of the informer ;
or
(4) It will claim privilege of non^disclosure.
6(i) Hearing on privilege set for
6(j) The government to state:
There (has) (has not) been any — (Circle appropriate response)
(1) Electronic surveillance of the defendant or his premises ;
(2) Leads obtained by electronic surveillance of defendant's person or
premises ;
(3) All material will be supplied, or
6(k) Hearing on disclosure set for
C. MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS
7. The defense moves — (Number circled shows motion requested)
7(a) To dismiiss for failure of the indictment (or information) to state an
offense (Granted) (Denied)
7(b) To dismiss the indictment or information (or count thereof) on
the ground of duplicity. (Granted (Denied)
7(c) To .sever case of defendant and for a separate trial.
(Granted) (Denied)
7(d) To severe count of the indictment or information and for a
separate trial thereon. (Granted) (Denied)
7(e) For a Bill of Particulars. (Granted) (Denied)
7(f) To take a deposition of witness for testimonial purposes and not for
discovery. (Granted) (Denied)
7(g) To require government to .secure the appearance of witness
who is subject to government direction at the trial or hearing. (Granted)
(Denied)
7(h) To dismiss for delay in prosecution. (Granted) (Denied)
7(i) To inquire into the reasonableness of bail. Amount fixed .
(Affirmed) (Modified to .)
1312
D. DISCOVERY BY THE GOVERNMENT
D.l. Statements by the defense in response to government requests.
8. Competency, Insanity, and Diminished Mental Responsibility
8(a) There (is) (is not) any claim of incompetency of defendant to stand
trial.
8(b) Defendant (will) (will not) rely on a defense of insanity at the time
of offense ;
If the answer to 8(a) or (b) is "will" the
8(c) Defendant (will) (will not) supply the name of his witnesses, both lay
and professional, on the above issue;
8(d) Defendant (will) (will not) permit the prosecution to inspect and copy
all medical reports under his control or the control of his attorney ;
8(e) Defendant (will) (will not) submit to a psychiatric examination by a
court appointed doctor on the issue of his sanity at the time of the alleged
offense.
9. Alibi
9(a) Defendant (will) (will not) rely on an alibi;
9(b) Defendant (will) (will not) furnish a list of his alibi witnesses (but
desires to be present during any interview).
10. Scientific Testing
10(a) Defendant (will) (will not) furnish results of scientific tests, experi-
ments or comparisons and the names of persons who conducted the tests.
10(b) Defendant (will) (will not) provide the government with all records
and memoranda constituting documentary evidence in his possession or under
his control or (will) (will not) disclose the whereabouts of said material. If
said documentary evidence is not available but destroyed, the defense (will)
(will not) state the time, place, and date of said destruction and the location
of reports, if any, concerning said destruction.
11. Nature of the Defense
11(a) Defense counsel states that the general nature of defense is — (Circle
appropriate response)
(1) Lack of knowledge of contraband
(2) Lack of specific intent
(3) Diminished mental responsibility
(4) Entrapment
(5) General denial. Put government to proof, but (will) (may) offer
evidence after government rests.
(6) General denial. Put government to proof, but (will) (may) offer
no evidence after government rests.
11(b) Defense counsel states it (will) (will not) waive husband and wife
privilege.
11(c) Defendant (will) (may) (will not) testify.
11(d) Defendant (will) (may) (will not) call additional witnesses.
11(e) Character witnesses (will) (will not) be called.
11(f) Defense counsel will supply government names, addresses, and phone
numbers of additional witnesses for defendant days before trial.
D. 2. Ruling on government request and motions
12. Government moves for the defendant —
12 (a ) to appear in a lineup. (Granted) (Denied)
12(b) to speak for voice identification by witness. (Granted) (Denied)
12 (c) to he finger printed. (Granted) (Denied)
12(d) to pose for photographs, (not involving a re-enactment of the crime)
(Granted) (Denied)
12(e) to try on articles of clothing. (Granted) (Denied)
12(f) Surrender clothing or shoes for experimental comparison. (Granted)
( Denied )
12(g) to permit taking of specimens of material under fingernails. ( Granted )
(Denied)
12(h) to permit taking sam,ples of blood, hair, and other materials of his body
which involves no unreasonable intrusion. (Granted) (Denied)
12 ( i ) to provide samples of his handwriting. ( Granted ) ( Denied )
12(j) to submit to a physical external inspection of his body. (Granted)
( Denied )
1313
E. STIPULATIONS
If the Stipulation form will not cover suflaciently the area agreed upon, it is
recommended that the original be attached hereto and filed at the omnibus
hearing.
(All stipulations must be signed by the defendant and his attorney as required
by Rule 17.1, F.R-Cr.P.)
13. It is stipulated between the parties :
13(a) That if
were calle<l a,s a witness and sworn he would testify he was the owner of the
motor vehicle on the date referred to in the indictment (or information) and
that on or about that date the motor vehicle disappeared or was stolen and that
he never gave the defendant or any other person i)ermission to take the motor
vehicle.
Attorney for Defendant Defendant
13(b) That the oflScial report of the chemist may be received in evidence as
proof of the weight and nature of the substance referred to in the indictment
(or information).
Attorney for Defendant Defendant
13(c) That if the official govern-
ment chemist were called, qualified as an expert and sworn as a witness he would
testify that the substance referred to in the indictment (or information) has
been chemically tested and is
and the weight is
Attorney for Defendant Defendant
13(d) That there had been a continuous chain of custody in government agents
from the time of the seizure of the contraband to the time of the trial.
Attorney for Defendant Defendant
13(e) Miscellaneous stipulations :
Attorney for Defendant Defendant
F. CONCLUSION
14. Defense counsel states :
14(a) That defense counsel as of the date of this conference of counsel knows
of no problems involving delay in arraignment, the Miranda Rule or illegal
search and seizure or arrest, or any other constitutional problem, except as set
forth above. (Agree) (Disagree)
14(b) That defense counsel has inspected the check list on this OH-3 Action
Taken Form, and knows of no other motion, proc-eeding of request which he de-
sires to press, other than those checked thereon. (Agree) (Disagree)
15. Defense counsel states :
15(a) There (is) (is not) (may be) a probability of a disposition \^^thout
trial.
15(b) Defendant (will) (will not) waive a jury and ask for a court trial.
1314
15(c) That an Omnibus Hearing (is) (is not) desired, and government counsel
(agree) (disagree)
15(d) If all counsel conclude after conferring, that no motions will be urged,
that an Omnibus Hearing is not desired, they may complete, approve and have
the defendant sign (where indicated) Form OH-3, and submit it to the Court
not later than five (5) days prior to the date set for the Omnibus Hearing, in
which event no hearing will be held unless otherwise directed by the Court.
15(e) If a hearing is desired, all counsel shall advise the Court in writing not
later than five (5) days prior to the date set for the Omnibus Hearing whether
or not they will be ready for such hearing on the date set in the Order Setting
Conference of Counsel and Omnibus Hearing.
Approved: Date:
Attorney for the United States So ordered :
Attorney for Defendant
United States District Judge
Defendant
Statement of Reese L. Harrison, Jr., Special Assistant U.S. District
Attorney, Western District of Texas
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: What is Omnibus? Some of my
fellow prosecutors have termed it "Omnious". Black's Law Dictionary defines
it as "embracing the whole of a complex subject matter by uniting all parties in
interest having adverse or conflicting claims, thereby avoiding circuity or
multiplicity of action." It simply means that issues in criminal cases which
normally would be raised at the trial are fully explored prior to trial in a formal
pretrial conference in open court in a manner similar to that contemplated by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The problem with the initiation of the Omnibus Hearing Project is that it is
different and "'goes against the grain", so to speak, of a prosecuting attorney.
When I first became a prosecuting attorney the prosecution told the defendant
very little and the defendant told the prosecution even less. Some argue that the
Omnibus Hearing Project is inconsistent with the adversary system. If "trial by
ambush" is what is meant by the adversary system, then I think it is outmoded
and should be discarded for our objective is a "search for the truth", and not
the defeat of an enemy by a clever surprise. Preparation for trial should not be
purely a guessing game. However, it has been my personal experience that I am
more of an adversary under the project than I was prior thereto for the reasons
hereinafter explained. For one to be an effective advocate he must have initiative
and re.sourcefulness. These attributes will lead to avenues never before dreamed
of by the prosecution.
Under the Omnihus Hearing Project it is not inapa>ropriate, nor does it violate
the Fifth Amendment privilege, for the defendant to disclose ail real and docu-
mentary evidence he intends to introduce into evidence prior to the time of trial,
so that the prosecution will not be surprised. A statement of testimonial evidence
that will be offered from the defense ^^^tnesses. other than the defendant, is also
supplied for like reasons. Diligent and reesourceful prosecutors can obtain this
information when the defendant enters into the project where formerly the
prosectuors had no idea what evidence, if any, would be offered by the defendant.
Of course, you will say to yoursrif, "a defendant never has any evidence to
offer !" That may be true in a great number of cases, but there is an increasing
number of criminal cases where a defendant offers a full and sophisticated de-
fense, which prior to the initiation of the project was unkno^^^l to tJie prosecu-
tion. The prosecution now learns the names and addresses of defense witnesses
in advance, thus enabling it to send prosecution oflScials to interview them and
pin down their testimony.
Under the project, the defendant furnishes written reports of expert witnesses
in advance of the trial. The prosecution may call in prosecution experts to assist
in developing a f^an of cross-examination of defendant's experts, and to assist in
finding areas of vulnerability in the report of the defense's expert witnesses.
Under the project, the prasecution secures a list of character witnesses and
their addresses, from which it can adduce information resulting in the dis-
1315
qualification of those witnesses, tliereby proliibiting said witnesses from testi-
fying relative to the character of the defendant. In addition, knowing who the
character witnesses are. and from what locality or institution tliey come, pro-
duces a source from wliicli the prosecution is able on occasion to find witnesses
whose testimony with respect to the defendant's chai-acter is unfavorable to the
defendant.
Alibi witnesses and their addresses can be secured by ixirticipation in the
project. This gives the prosecution an opportunity to explore the alibi, and in
many instances assemble facts which show that the claimed alibi is not, in fact,
an alibi at all, and that the act resulting in the offense could still have taken
place in spite of the alihi defense.
The project reqiiires that all motions to suppress confessions and admissions,
as well as those with resi>ect to searches and seizures, must be heard in advance
of trial. The effect is twofold. First, long and costly delays where the jury is
retired from the courtroom while an intrial hearing is held on the motion to
suppress are eliminated. Secondly, in many narcotic cases the principal issue is
not whether the defendant was in possession of the contraband, but on the con-
trary, the issue is the legality of the search, i.e. probable cause for the warrant,
the manner of execution of the warrant, etc. Many times we have found that the
defendant who wants his day in Court is satisfied with a hearing on a motion
to suppress. Following the hearing, if the Court denies the motion, the defendant
will oftentimes agree to try the case before the Court without a jury. This allows
the Court to consider the evidence already received at the hearing on the motion
to suppress, and for the i>rosecution to offer, and the Court to receive, such other
evidence as the prosecution considers necessary to bring about a conviction,
whereupon the Court makes a finding of either guilt or innocence. This results in
the defendant preserving his record on the question involving the motion to
suppress so that he can take his appeal on this issue, thus eliminating the delay
and cost of empanelling a jury and having A^itnesses stand around in the halls two
to three days waiting to be called to testify during the trial.
One of the most important advantages of the project is the elimination of the
written motion practice, whereby counsel are required to file written motions
accompanied by briefs in supiwrt thereof and the substitution of the pretrial
order "check list" of motions. The written motion and memorandum brief in
support thereof is a wholly desirable practice, in and of itself, where the ques-
tion is unique and one of first impression, but it is a time consuming problem
resulting in a backlog in the steno pool when the prosecution is required to
answer motions of a "plain vanilla" nature. Motions in the latter category have
in all probability been heard and con.sidered on many occasions by the trial
judge, and written motions and briefs are simply not that helpful to the Court.
Tlie project eliminates this practice and utilizes a pretrial order "cheek list",
except in those instances where the Court feels that the issue is such that it
should be explored more fully and completely in written memoranda briefs of-
fered by counsel for both sides. These instances are rare and because of this
fact, so-called "plain vanilla" motions requiring written briefs have been elimi-
nated. Further, due to the elimination of the written motion practice just de-
scribed, the prosecution can more effectively use and allocate the time which
normally would be .spent to research and brief motions of the "plain vanilla"
nature, to brief and re.search the more difficult and unique questions of law in
connection with which the Court requests written memorandum briefs from
counsel on both sides. The hearings on all motions written or checked off on the
pretrial order are held at the pretrial conference, referred to as the Omnibus
Hearing, at which time the issues are resolved, the defendant makes his record,
and the error, if any, in the trial court denying the written motions is preserved.
The Omnibus Hearing Project, by resulting in a full disclosure of the prosecu-
tion file, reduces, if it does not entirely eliminate, the problems involved under
the rule of Brady v. Maryland, and its progeny. With full disclosure of the prose-
cution file, the defense is not surprised and no one should be able to convince
a judge that the prosecution has withheld evidence favorable to the defendant
on the issue of guilt, when all the evidence in the prosecution file has been fur-
nished to the defendant prior to trial.
Finally, and perhaps the greatest advantage of the Omnibus Hearing, is that
it results in more pleas of guilty than we have ever experienced in the past. Tliis
is brought about by making full di.scuosure of everything in the prosecution file
to the defendant. At first blush, the prosecutors will be wholly .skeptical and
perhaps incensed, as I was. Many will say that the result of such disclosure of
1316
the prosecution file will result in more acquittals and dismissals. However, the
figures in the San Antonio Division of the Western District of Texas are to
the contrary.
Why the increase in pleas of guilty ? I have had many of the outstanding crimi-
nal defense lawyers of the San Antonio Bar state that they are apprehensive
about advising their client to plead guilty if they do not know the merits of the
prosecution's case. When the defendant has the opportunity to see the prosecu-
tion's case and discuss the same with his lawyer, and both are fully iuforme<l
concerning the same, the criminal defense lawyers tell me that their clients are
more receptive to pleading guilty then prior to the implementation of the proj-
ect. One reason for this is that the defense attorney and his client are able to
base their discussion concerning a plea of guilty by what is contained in the
prosecution's file.
The success of the Omnibus Hearing Project depends upon strong leadership
from the Bench, an imaginative and resourceful prosecutor, and a defense bar
that responds in a highly professional manner.
Chairman Pepper. I have a staff synopsis and prepared statement
from Prof. Etizioni of Cohimbia University which will be placed in
the record.
[The material referred to follows :]
Staff Synopsis of Prof. Amitai Etizoni
Professor Amitai Etzioni obtained his Ph. D. at the University of California
in Berkley in 1958. He is a professor of sociology and Chairman of the Sociology
Department at Columbia. The Professor has been a consultant for government
agencies at the Federal, State, and Municipal level and has written widely for
professional and other journals here and abroad including the New York Times'
and the Washington Post.
Professor Etzioni presents three policies to reduce crime by one third in
twelve months and substantiates his theories with considerable statistical data
all of which I have enclosed. The policies investigated by the Professor and his
associates are : the decriminalization of victimless crimes, which would result
in a reduction of annual arrests of 31 per cent : a program of full employment —
meaningful and decent paying — of young people that would result in a 9 per cent
reduction of violent crime : and domestic disarmament that would result in a
decrease in murder from 40 per cent to 45 per cent and an estimated decrease in
armed robbery of 23 to 26 per cent. Professor Etzioni also calculated secondary
reduction in crime that follows the freeing of police personnel as a result of the
above reductions.
We are all aware of the court congestion problem presented by victimless
crimes. Not only does the Professor suggest methods of alleviating the conditions
but he statistically substantiates his assertions.
Professor Etzioni is concerned with domestic disarmament and asserts that
if this could be achieved there would be a decrease in murder from 40 to 50 per
cent and an estimated decrease in armed robbery from 23 to 26 per cent. He does
not advocate the type of gun control that has met so much legislative resistance
but feels if guns were removed from private hands as in Canada, Britain. France,
West Germany and Israel that 85 per cent of all guns could be removed. A person
who wanted the use of a gun would have to remove the same from a gun bank and
return it after he had gone hunting or used it in some other lawful manner.
The third attack that Professor Etzioni would make on crime is meaningful
employment for youth because he points out statistically that crime is very much
a youthful occupation and that unemployment which is itself disproportionately
associated with crime is disproportionately high among the youth.
Using 1970 as a base year the Professor presents statistics which shows that
more than half of all arrests are persons under 25. He relates this to the high
unemployment rate for persons in that age bracket and concludes that meaning-
ful employment of the young would bring about a reduction in crime.
1317
Three Policies To Reduce Crime by One-third in Twelve Months
(By Amitai Etzioni)
(Research Assistance : Joshua Freeman)
general conclusion
So called "liberal" crime-reduction policies, which have not been implemented
so far, would reduce crime Hignificantly and quickly, our projections show that
if really Riven a chance we would see a decline of crime between 36 & 39%
within twelve months.
The three policies we have investigated are : the decriminalization of victim-
less crimes, which would result in a reduction of annual arrests of 31 per cent;
a program of full employment— meaningful and decent paying — of young people
that would result in a 9 per cent reduction of violent crime ; and domestic dis-
armament that would result in a decrease in murder from 40 per cent to 45 i»er
cent and an estimated decrease in armed robbery of 23 to 26 per cent.
We further calculated the secondary reduction in crime that would come with
the freeing of police resources as a result of the above reductions ; this amounted
to another 3.3 per cent to 3.4 per cent annually.
In sum, we project a total reduction in all crime, as measured by arrests, of
from 35.9 per cent to 38.8 per cent annually. The three policies that would
effect this reduction could be implemented within the next twelve months and
they are vastly more effective than any reduction even advocates of the death
penalty could hope for.
METHODS OF COMPUTATION
Our projections are based on 1970 data, the most complete currently available
data on crime. When relevant, both a pessimistic and an optimistic projection,
as regarding the effects of the suggested policies, were made. Note that while
the pessimistic projections are very cautious, the optimistic ones are not ex-
cessively so. The reasons we used such conservative projections is that we wished
to bend over backward, to be extra careful in our conclusions. Nevertheless,
even the more pessimistic projection suggests that more than a third of the
crime in the U.S.A. (35.9%) could be eliminated within the next twelve months,
if the Congress, the Executive and the courts saw fit to implement, in conjunction,
the following three policies often discussed but never implemented in this coun-
try.
THE measure of DECRIMINALIZATION OF VICTIMLESS CRIMES
Again and again the national debate about crime conjures up the image of
the mugger, robber, rapist and assassin. Often overlooked is that a sizeable part
of the crime wave is made up of crimes which have no harmful effect on anyone
other than the perpetuator and even the harmful effects on him are not fully
established. A staggering 2.066,035 arrests, of the total of 6,570,473 reported in
1970 \ a full third, were for victimless crimes. (These victimless crimes include
prostitution, gambling, drunkenness, runaways, and marajuana violations.)
Some of these victimless crimes, such as prostitution and gambling, involve
moral issftes. In effect then, our police are punishing people who misbehave by
the code of established members of the community, or by a code of behavior that
is no longer responsive to the community, rather than protecting body or prop-
1 Unless noted, all arrest statistics are from the FBI, U.S. Department of .Justice
Uniform Crime Reports — 1970 (WasliinRton. D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970),
hereafter cited as UCA. 5,270 agencies, representing a 1970 population of 1.51.604,000 (or
75% of the country), reported the arrests under their jurisdiction according to standard-
ized FBI procedures. If a person is arrested and charged with several oflfenses. this is
counted as only one arrest (which is listed under the most serious charge involved). If
an individual is arrested on several separate occasions, or several persons are arrested
for the same offense, each arrest is counted separately. Traffic offenses are not included
in these statistics. For a fuller discussion of the UCR see Marvin E. Wolfgang, "Uniform
Crime Reports: A Critical Appraisal,' University of Pennsylvania Law Review, p. 721
(^1963), and Crimea of Violence. A staff report submitted to the National Commission of
the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Washington : U.S. Government Printing Office,
December 1969, Part I Chapter 2.
1318
erty from violence. However, the most common arrest in the area of victimless
crimes is for a "crime" which only a minority consider more than a breach of
good manners, namely drunkenness. 1,512,672 arrests, or 23%, of the total arrests
reported were for this charge. This does not include those arrested for drunken
driving (432,522 arrests), liquor violations (222,464) or alcohol related crimes.
(In line with our cautious approach, we included none of the 9% of all arrests
which involved a simple "breach of the peace" at least some of which surely
involve victimless crimes, e.g. boisterous drunk.) Computing only those arrests
concerned with drunkeness alone locates this as the leading victimless crime;
over twice as many arrests are reported on this charge as for the next largest
cause for arrest, larcency.
Sex offenses, other than forcible rape, account for 1.5% of all arrests. There
were about 49,000 arrests for prostitution and commercialized vice, and an equal
number for other sex offenses,^ for a total of 98,722 arrests. Practically all of
these "criminals" are consenting adults, who in other countries, for instance in
Britain, woidd not have been arrested. Police sources, who indicate that the
policemen often are quite happy to get out of the social work and "moral" busi-
ness, and focus on chasing criminals, occasionally suggest that prostitution
should be controlled because it "leads" to other crimes, especially theft (or
"rolling"). But the arrests reported here include only those in which charges
no more serious than prostitution are also involved.
Gambling accounted for another 1.3% of all arrests, with 84,804 arrests made
on this charge in 1970. The extent to which communities still view gambling
as a sin varies, but this seems to be on the decline. Virtually nobody now
seriously views it as a "crime," other than in the tautological sense, i.e. "because
the law says so."
These crimes also raise a constitutional issue. Only a very small fraction
of all gamblers, homosexuals, or prostitutes are arrested: when only a minute
proportion of those committing a crime are punished, the punishment might
legally be considered "arbitrary"', and as such be unconstitutional. On these
grounds the Supreme Court might be able to relieve the society from the
obsolescent grip of laws prohibiting victimless crimes by striking them off the
books.
As for drunkenness, expert after expert has testified, that drunks should .be
turned over to medical, rather than police authorities ; the latter merely lock
them up for the night, release them the next day, without the benefit of any
long-term treatment, and then, simply rearrest them shortly thereafter.
If runaways as well as drunkards, were to be handled by authorities other
than the police, in this case, social work agencies, the number of arrests would
fall by another 179,073 a year.
While the treatment of marijuana is much more controversial, the evidence
shows that this is not more but less harmful than alcohol. Moreover, it pacifies
and does not cause aggressive behavior. A Presidential commission has recom-
mended that it be decriminalized. This would reduce the annual number of arrests
by another 190,764 (by 1970 figures) or 2.9%.=
All said and done, if the categories of victimless crimes listed above were
decriminalized, 31.4% i>er cent of all arrests, or 2,066,085, would be eliminated.*
It may at first seem that this crime reduction is strictly semantic i.e., some
acts, which are not harmful to body or property of others or the c(*nmunity,
were once called crimes, we cease to call them crimes, and — we report less crime.
But there is a corollary, very real, crime reduction effect : a giant pool of police
resources would be freed to focus on the crimes which do have victims.^ And,
hundreds of thousands of people, many quite young, who are legally labelled
"criminals" and taught to see themselves as such, and are thus forced into con-
tacts with criminal sub-cultures and organizations, would themselves no longer
so pushed by the society and its obsolescent laws.
EMPLOYMENT OF THE YOUNG, AND CRIME PREVENTION
Crime is very much a youthful occupation. Many young offenders "retire" by the
time they reach 25, even if they were not caught or arrested. More than half of
2 Included in "other sex offenses" are statutory rape, offenses agamst chastity, morals-
common decency and so forth.
^Marijuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding. First Report of the National Commission
on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, Washington : U.S. Gov't Printing Office, March 1972,
P-106-7.
< This is simply the summed total of arrests, for the above listed "victimless crimes."
6 This effect is discussed in the final section of this report.
1319
all arrests, 52.4%, are of persons under 25. (25.3% — under 18.) 77% of all robbers
arrested are less than 25 years old."
Second, unemployment which is itself disproportionately associated with crime,
is disproportionately high among the young. Using 1970 as a base year, we find
that while the uu-employment rate for all males was 4.4%, the rate for males
aged 16 and 17 was 16.9%, for males aged 18 and 19, 13.4% and for those 20-24
years old, 8.4%. Likewise, while the overall rate for women was 5.9%, for those
18 and 19, 14.4%, and for those 20-24 years old, 7.9%. For non-white persons the
rates are even higher than the overall rates, reaching a peak of 36.9% unem-
ployment for non-white females, agp 16 and 17."
Finally, it should be noted that unemployment rates are still higher when we
look specifically at urban poverty neighborhoods. Thus, while the overall unem-
ployment rate for the entire population was 4.9% in 1970, it was one and one
half times as much (7.6%) in urban poverty neighborhood.*
Table 3. — Unemployment iy sex, race, and age, 1970
Percent
Total 4. 9
Male 4. 4
Age:
16 to 17 16. 9
White 15.7
Nonwhite 27. 8
18 to 19 13. 4
White 12.0
Nonwhite 23. 1
20 to 24 8.4
White 7.8
Nonwhite 12.6
Female 5. 9
16 to 17 17. 4
White 15.3
Nonwhite 36.9
18 to 19 14. 4
White 11.9
Nonwhite 32.9
20 to 24 7. 9
White 6.9
Nonwhite 15.0
Source : "Manpower Report to the President" U.S. Department of Labor, March 1972
(U.S. Government PrintinR Office) p. 177-179.
'^ Uniform Crime Reports. 1970, p. 126-27. Table I presents a summary of the relevant
(lata.
An independent study of 17 cities, using 1967 data, supplied directly by the local
authorities came up with very similar findings, as shown in Table 2. See Crimes of
Violence, Vol. II, A Staff Report Submitted to the National Commission on the causes
and prevention of Violence, Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office, December,
1969. PP 267, 271, 27.".. 279. 28.3.
'Manpower Report to the President, U.S. Department of Labor, March 1972, (U.S.
Government Printing Office) p. 177-179. Table 3 gives a complete summary of the relevant
data.
The rates calculated by the Dept. of Labor are based on a monthly survey of house-
holds, in which the number of persons actively seeking work is ascertained. It has been
widely stated that this method of calculation significantly underestimates the true unem-
ployment rate, since those unable to find work, and so discouraged that they have ceased
active search, are not counted as being unemployed, but rather as not being in the work
force. Furthermore, those seeking full-time work, but presentlv employed involuntarilv on
a part-time l)asls only, are counted as fully employed, "in a study of long-term
Civilian Labor Participation Rates, and forced part-time emplovment, Paul Sweezy has
estimated that real unemployment is about 1.,") times the Dept. of Labor figure. (See Paul
Sweezy, "Economic Stagnation and the Stagnation of Economics", Monthly Review, 22:11
(.\prll 1971).
As will be seen later, we have therefore made projections based both on the official
rates and rates 1.,") times as high as the official ones.
8 "The poverty neighborhood classification used is based on a ranking of census tracts
according to 1960 data on income, education, skills, housing, and proportion of broken
families. The poorest one-fifth of these tracts in the Nation's 100 largest metropolitan
areas are considered poverty nelghlx)rhoods. As such some persons above the poverty
level are pn.)bably included and some poor persons living in other urban neighborhoods
excluded. From : U.S. Dept. of Labor, Manpower Report to the President, March 1972,
L.S. Government Printing Office, p. 251.
1320
While there do not seem to be any recent national statistics on the socio-
economic status of criminal offenders or their occupational status,* there are
several studies which allow us to estimate the proportion and nitmber of crimes
committed by unemployed young persons, and the effect of full and meaningful
employment of the young on crime. The most comprehensive study of the oc-
cupational status of offenders w^as the study of major crime in 17 cities in 1967.
conducted by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence.^"
Using the data in that study, we can calculate the rate at which unemployed
and employed persons commit crimes." We calculated these rates in two ways,
once using the unemployment rates for thes^' cities presente<l by the U.S. De-
partment of Labor, and once using rates one and a half times as great, in order
to compensate for official unemployment rates undercounting the chronically
unemployed, particularly among the young. (They include only those who ac-
tively seek employment.)'"
Assuming that those currently unemployed would, if employed, commit crimes
not at the rate they currently do so, but rather at the rate of those currently
employed (if only because the hours spent at work, or resting from it. are not
spent stalking the street in search of a "mark"), we can c*alculate the iier-
centage decrease in crime that would result from conditions of full employment
of all persons."
» A local stud.v of the District of Columbia found that 44% of Black and 40% of White
offenders in major violent crimes were unemployed. See Report of the President's Com-
mission on Crime in the District of Colum,bia, Washington, D.C., United States Govern-
ment Printing Office. 1966, pp. 131-132.
1" This study, and the raw data collected for It, comprise Chapter 5 and Appendix 11
respectively, of Volume 11, Crimes of Violence, of the Commission's Report, op. cit.
11 We calculated the rate at which unemployed and employed persons commit crime as
follows :
The 17 city study gives the total number of offenses in 1967 in these cities for criminal
homicide, forcible rape, aggravated assault, and armed and unarmed robbery. It also
gives the percentage of offenses in each category committed by each occupational group,
which can be subtotaled into offenses committed by unemployed persons, offenses com-
mitted by employed persons, and offenses committed by persons not in the work force
(i.e. students, housewives, etc.). Table 4 column 1 presents the percentages for unem-
ployed and employed persons. Unless some occupation was stated, all persons 17 or under
were listed as students, and therefore not in the work force. Thus a proportion of crimes
committed by persons under 17 who were actually unemployed, that is neither students
nor employed, were listed as being committed by students. (Presumably those minors
with a job were listed under that occupational grouping as well). The effect of this bias is
to decrease the amount of crime reported to have been committed by unemployed persons.
By multiplying the number of offenses in each category by the percentage committed by
employed and unemployed persons respectively, we calculated the actual number of
crimes committed by each group in these cities in 1967. (For this and other calculations
see table 4).
We used the 1967 employment data for these same 17 cities (from the Manpower Report
to the President. April 1971) to determine the total number of individuals who were
employed and who were unemployed. By dividing the number of offenses for each crime
committed by unemployed and employed persons respectively, by the number of persons
in each of these categories, we determined the number of offenses committed per thou-
sand unemployed persons and per thousand employed persons, that is the rates of crime
for unemployed and employed persons. These rates are shown in Table 4, column 4.
1- Since it is widely asserted that many persons actually unemployed are categorized
by the Department of Labor as being out of the work force (see footnote 6), we re-
calculated crime rates increasing by 50% the number of persons reported as unemployed
In the 17 cities in 1967. (See Table 4).
" First we estimated the number of offenses in each crime category committed nationally
by unemployed persons by multiplying the total number of offenses nationally bv the
percentage of the specific offenses committed by uneniploved persons, as determined in the
17 city study (see Table 5 for full data and calculations). We then projected the number
of crimes that would be committed by those currently unemployed if they committed
crime at the employed person rate by dividing the number of crimes' they currently commit
by the ratio of the relevant unemployed crime rate to the employed crime rate (again
as determined from the 17 city study). By subtracting the projected number of offenses
that would be committed by those currently unemployed if fully employed, from the num-
ber of offenses currently committed by the unemployed, we have the reduction in the
number of offenses that we could expect to result from full employment. Dividing this
figure by the total number of offenses for that crime category, we can express the reduction
as a percentage of current crime levels.
1321
TABLE 4.— CRIME RATES: EMPLOYED VERSUS UNEMPLOYED; 17 CITIES, 19671
Percent
committed by
employment
status
Number
committed by
employment
status
Total number
of persons
(thousands)
in employ-
ment status
category '
Rate of
crime/thou-
sand persons en
by employ-
ment status 3
Ratio un-
iployed vote/
employed
votes *
12.7
59.9
415.8
1,961.1
870.7
« (1,306.1)
24,616.5
0.478
(.318)
.080
5.975
(3. 985)
15.0
43.7
11,279.7
32, 861. 5
870.7
(1,306.1)
24,616.5
11.620
(. 8636)
1.335
8.714
(6. 469)
15.7
59.4
1,241.6
4,697.4
870.7
(1,306.1)
24,616.5
1.426
(.951)
.191
7.466
(4.979)
29.8
42.1
18, 988. 0
26, 825. 3
870.7
(1,306.1)
24,616.5
21.808
(14. 538)
1.090
20.007
(13.3)
5.6
17.0
2, 378. 8
7,221.4
870.7
(1,306.1)
24, 616. 5
2.732
(1.821)
.293
9.324
(6.215)
Criminal homicide, total offenses=3274s
Unemployed
Employed
Aggravated assault, total offenses=75,198:
Unemployed
Employed
Forcible rate, total offenses=7,908:
Unemployed
Employed.
Armed robbery, total otfenses=63,718:'
Unemployed
Employed.
Unarmed robbery, total offenses = 42,479 : '
Unemployed
Employed
1 From 17 city survey, "Crimes of Violence," op. cit., pp. 270, 274, 278, 282, 286.
2 From "Manpow^er Report to the President," April 1971. »
'Column 2 divided by col. 3.
* Unemployed rate from col. 4 divided by employed rate from col. 4.
'Total offenses for the 17 cities, from "Crimes of Violence," p. 262, multiplied by col. 1.
' Parenthetical figures are second calculation, using higher unemployment rate estimate, as discussed in footnote 11.
' Estimate, based on total robberies: 106,197, and national figure of 60 percent robberies armed.
TABLE I.— AGE AND CRIMINALITY
Crime
Percent of offenders arrested
Percent
under 15
Percent
under 18
Percent
under 21
Percent
under 25
All crimes -
Violent crime major:
Murder and nonnegligant manslaughter
Forcible rape
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Total violent crime
Property crime major:
Burglary, breaking and entering
Larceny-theft
Autotheft
Total property crime.
Other selected crimes:
Other assaults (not aggravated)
Arson
Vandalism
9.2
25.3
39.1
52.4
1.5
4.1
11.1
5.4
10.5
20.8
33.4
16.5
25.2
42.4
56.6
29.8
43.4
64.5
77.0
58.6
7.1
22.6
40.1
58.5
22.9
25.1
15.1
52.0
50.7
56.1
70.4
66.5
74.9
80.7
77.4
86.3
23.3
51.7
68.6
80.1
7.3
39.0
45.3
18.2
59.5
72.0
30.7
69.5
81.1
47.0
77.4
87.3
Source: From "Uniform Crime Reports," FBI, 1970. pp. 126-27 (52 percent agencies, 1970 population: 151,604,000).
1322
TABLE 2.— AGE AND CRIMINALITY
Percent of offenders of age
Otol7
18 to 25 Total (0 to 250)
Criminal homicide 9. 1 33.5
Aggravated assault 17.7 24.6
Forcible rape 20.9 48.0
Armed robbery 23.4 52.0
Unarmed robbery 57.1 31.3
42.6
42.3
68.9
75.4
88.4
Source: From a survey of 17 cities, 1967, weighted cases conducted by National Commission on the Causes and Pre-
vention of Violence, in their report, vol. U, pp. 267, 271, 275, 279, 283.
TABLE 5.— PROJECTED REDUCTION IN CRIME AFTER FULL EMPLOYMENT
Offense
Number of
Number of
offenses
Percent
offenses
if commit-
Projected
Number of
committed
committed
ted at
number of
offenses
by unem-
by unem-
employed
crimes
Percent
19701
ployed 2
ployment 3
rate 4
less'
decrease ^
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
15, 856
12.7
2,014
337
1,677
10.6
12, 836
12.7
1,630
273
1,357 .-
' (505)
(1, 509)
(9.5)
(409)
1,221 ..
15,411
15.7
2,420
324
2,096
13.6
(485)
(1,934)
(12.5)
125,971
15.0
18, 896
2,168
16,728
13.3
(2,921)
(15,975)
(12.7)
52, 612
29.8
15, 678
784
14, 894
28.3
(1,175)
(14, 503)
(27.6)
35, 075
5.6
1,964
211
1,753
5.0
(316)
(1,648)
(4.7)
Criminal homicide
Excluding manslaughter by negli-
gence ,
Forcible rape
Aggravated assault
Armed robbery 8_ _.
Unarmed robbery '
1 Number of arrested offenders, 1970. From UCR, 1970, p. 126.
2 From table 4, col. 1.
3 Col. 1 times col. 2.
* Col. 3 divided by table 4, col. 5 (the ratio of unemployed crime rate to employed crime rate).
5 Col. 3 minus col. 4.
6 The percentage decrease in total crime, if unemployed committed crimes at employed rate. Col. 5 divided by col. 1.
' The parenthetical figures are for a 2d calculation, using increased unemployment estimate, as discussed in footnote
11.
8 The UCR does not directly give armed-unarmed statistics for robbery. However, it states that 60 percent of robberies
were armed and in total there were 87,687 robbery arrests.
This decrease, using the official unemployment rates, (which averaged 3.4% for
the 17 cities) varies from 5% for unarmed robbery to 28.S% for armed robbery.
Using the higher unemployment rate, the range is from a 4.7% to a 27.6% de-
crease. Since however our figures are based only on tlie easier-to-achieve full
and meaningful employment among those 25 and younger, we have to apply these
decreases only to the percentage of each crime committed by i^ersons in that
age category. Projecting data for the percentage of crimes committed in the 17
cities by young offenders (which are very similar to national data from a sepa-
rate source)," we find that full employment for those 25 and younger would
result in a decrease of from 4.3%-4.5% of all murder (depending on the unem-
ployment rate estimate used), from 5.4%-5.6% in aggravated assault, from
8.6%-9.4% in forcible rape, and from 20.8%-21.3% in armed robbery.'" The
decrease in unarmed robbery would be from 4.2-4.4%.
" Although the 17 city and the national data are very similar, only the former is sub-
divided for robbery into armed and unarmed robbery. For this reason we chose to use this
data. However, itshould be noted that this data is for those 25 ami younger, while the
national data, previonsly discussed, is for those under 25. See tables 1 and 2 for compara-
tive data.
15 These figures are simply the decrease in crime expected from full employment of
persons of all ages, multiplied by the percentage of crimes committed by persons 25 and
younger (as shown in Table 2).
1323
Because the National Commission survey included only violent crimes, we
cannot calculate a precise projection of the reduction in proi^erty crime, such
as burglary, larceny, and auto-theft." However, given that the percentage of
young property crime offenders is higher even than for robbery," we can assume
that the reduction here would also be higher. However, to maintain our con-
servative approach, we estimate only that it will be in the range of reduction
of those crimes we were able to make precise projections for, that is between
■iA% and 21.3% or 4.2%-20.8% using the higher unemployment estimate. (The
large range is due to the lack of more precise data.)
In toto, while the relationships between unemployment and criminal behavior
are rather complex and not well studied, we estimate that full decent-paying
employment of young persons, would reduce violent crimes by 9% a year.'" The
size of the effect on crimes against property is difficult to pin point but certainly
will be considerable.
DOMESTIC DISARMAMENT
What effects on criminality would be achieved if most firearms would not
merely have to be registered, but were removed from private hands, as in
Canada, Britain, France, West Germany, Israel and practically all other demo-
cratic, ecouomically-develoi)ed societies. Drawing on the experience of other
countries, we assume and this is our iiessimistic estimate — that 85% of all
arms could be removed ; optimistically, this figure could reach 95%. What would
be the effect of such domestic disarmament, we ask, knowing full well that not
all those deprived of arms will also drop their criminal intent?
MURDERS : THE MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE
In 1970, 68% of the 13.649 murder victims were killed by the use of a firearm.'*
Firearm elimination would decrease this high rate of murder in two ways : in
some cases faced with the lack of firearms, the potential murderer will abandon
his intent altogether, and no crime will take place, for reasons soon to be
explained. Secondly, in a greater number of cases, some less deadly weapon will
be substituted for a firearm, and what otherwise would have been a lethal
attack will be in many cases, a non fatal one.
Certain murders by their very nature require a firearm."" It is impossible
to climb a tower and murder persons a mile away without using a rifle. Similarly,
it is very difficult to attack a guarded bank without using some sort of firearm.
Weak persons, children, cowardly assailants would all find attacks on others,
particularly physically strong victims, difficult if not impossible \Aithout fire-
arm availability. As Robert Coles puts it : "Every psycliiatrist has treated
patients who were thankful that gims were not around at one time or another
in their lives. Temper tantrimis, fights, seizures, hysterical episodes all make
the presence of guns an additional, and possible mortal, danger"."'
An informal examination of actual cases indicates that in about 25% of all
murders committed with firearms, the absence of the firearms would have
resulted in no crime at all being committed.
What does this mean in terms of the overall murder rate? 66% of all murders
use firearms, and after domestic disarmament firearms would not be available
in these cases. Our estimated reduction by 25% of murders in such cases would
therefore mean a total decrease of 15.9% in all murders (if domestic disarmament
is 95% effective), the reduction would be by 14.0%, if it is 85% enforced.*"
"Other, more costly property crime, such as embezzlement, fraud, and false advertising,
is usually committed by older, employed persons and would not likely be decreased by full
youth employment.
"80.1% of "major" property crime (larceny, burglary, auto-theft) is committed by
persons under 2.5 compared to 77.0% of robberies. See Table 1.
"* Here we simply totaled up the expected reduction in the number of oflfenses for
each of the five violent crimes (homicide, rape, assault, armed and unarmed robberv),
and expressed the total reduction as a percentage of all offenses in these categories. Using
the low unemployment estimate, we project a reduction of 9.1% ; using the higher estimate,
19 UCR, 1971, op. cit., p. 118.
™ This is particularly true for assassinations, which are almost always committed with
firearms.
21 Robert Coles, "America Amok", The New Republic, l.-)5 :S (August 27 1966) p 14
as cited in Mar\-in E. Wolfgang and Frances Ferracuti, The Subculture of Violence, New
lork : Travistock Publications, 1967. p. 1S9.
23 15.9% is 257c (murder reduction) of 95% (effectiveness of disarmament) of 66%
number of murderers involving firearms). Similarly, 14.0% is 25% of 85%, of 66%.
1324
However, the benefits of firearms elimination does not stop here. In the attacks
that still do occur, the substitution of less deadly weapons for firearms will
result in a large saving of lives, even if the number of incidents as such
remains the same.^ It is well documented that murders fall into two categories :
those characterized by a "single minded intend to kill",^ and those which
are "Slaying in the heat of passion, or killing as a Result of the intent to do
harm, but without specific intent to kill." ^ We will assume pessimistically that
all the remaining murders of the first tyije will be successfully carried out,
even in the absence of firearms. However, in the latter cases this will not be
true. These attacks, far more numerous, almost always grow out of quarrels
or arguments, usually among family or friends.^ The typical case involves some-
one grabbing the most potent weapon around — and using it. If it is a gun the
effect is usually fatal. As the head of Chicago Homicide put it, describing one
such case : "There was a domestic fight. A gun was there. And then somebody
was dead. If you have described one you have described them all." ^ But what
happens if a gun is not there? On the basis of the aforementioned survey we
assume that in three out of four of the cases, an attack still will take place,
and the next most lethal weapon, a knife will be used. It has been shown that
fewer fatalities in the case of knife attack will result by a ratio of 4 out of 5,
i.e. only one fatality where firearms would have left five dead.^ In other words,
in such attacks, when knives instead of guns are used, the death rate goes
down by 80%. (Of course when other weapons are used, as they would be,
whether fists, coke bottles, or baseball bats, the reduction will be still greater,
but we will stick to our conservative estimations).
To calculate the effect of this "substitution" effect, we first calculate the
number of attack.s that would still occur when firearms are eliminated. Since
60% of murders are by firearms and in 95% of these eases firearms would have
been eliminated, and knowing that 75% of these previously firearm attacks will
still occur, we find that 47% of all murders are attacks in which another weapon
will be substituted for a firearm.'" With 85% elimination, our pessimistic projec-
tion, such cases are 42% of the total. A study of Chicago murders showed that
78% were of the type characterized as "deadly attacks", not "single minded"
murders.*' (It is among these attacks that the 80% reduction in fatalities will
take place). All told then, as a result of the substitution of other weapons for
firearms, we will exi^ect a reduction in the overall murder rate of from 26.3%
to 29.3.% (depending on the effectiveness of the elimination policy).^
Combining the two effects, i.e. the elimination of some firearm attacks alto-
gether, and the use of less deadly weapons in others, we find that the overall
reduction in murder would optimistically be 45.0% (at 95% elimination) and
pessimistically 40.3% (at 85% elimination). In 1970 this would have amounted
to a saving of from 5501 to 6142 lives.
FIBEIARM ACCIDENTS
In 1988 there were 2.394 deaths from firearms accidents.^" The rate of fire-
arms accidents varies regionally in line with the rate of firearm ownership. In
other words, the more firearms — the more firearms accidents.^ We would there-
fore expect that the reduction in firearms would result in a i>arallel reduction
in accidental deaths, or an annual saving of 2232 (or 2035) lives.^^
23 For this section, we based our general argument on tliat presented in Frank Zimring's
"Is Gun Control Likely to Reduce Violent Killings." a mimeograph report of the Center
for Studies in Criminal Justice. University of Chicago, (republished in the University of
Chicago Law Review, 35 : 721 (1968).
2^ Ibid. p. 3.
25 Wolfgang and Ferracuti, op. cit. p. 189.
28 See Zimring, op. cit. p. 23. also UCR. 1970, op. cit. p. 9.
27 Commander Francis Flanagin, in a television interview about Chicago's 600th homicide
of 1968, quoted in George N^'ton and Frank Zimring. Firearms and Violence. A Staff Report
submitted to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Wash-
ington. United States Government Printing Office. 1969.
2» This ratio was determined by Frank Zimring, based on a study of 510 homicides, re-
ported to the Chicago police in 1966. and 480 serious assualts involving knives or guns
reported in the 5th period of 1968. In Zimring, op. cit. pp. 4-5.
2»47% is 75% (murders still occur, without firearms) of 95% (effectiveness) of 66%
( % of murders using firearms) .
3" Zimring. op. cit. pp. 2-3. Wolfgang and Ferracuti estimate that "Probably less than
51% of all known killings are premeditated, planned, and intentional." op. cit. p. 189.
31 i.e. 78% of 42% to 78%, of 47%,.
32 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United Statess 1972. (93rd
edition). Washington, D.C. 1972. p. 61.
^"^ Newton and Zimring, op. cit. p. 29.
3* 2232 = . 95 (effectiveness coefficient) X 2394. 2035 = .85X2394.
1325
It should be noted that the average life expectancy in the U.S. is about 72
years the average age of death from all accidents is Jtl years, and the average
uoe of victim.H of firearms accidents only 2^ years. 40% of the victims are chil-
dren and teenagers (under 20). "^ Disarmament would then save the most tragic
victims, the young and tlie innocent. ^o.ruv^(v-.ntx\
Firearms elimination will also lead to the avoidance of some 19,000-90,000
at 95% elimination (or at 85% effectiveness, 17,000^85,000) non-fatal injuries
annually, that result from firearm accidents.™
Combining the reductions in murder and accidents, we find that 95% fairearms
elimination would result in an annual savings of 8,374 lives; or if 85% effective,
a savings of 7, 536 lives.
KOBBERY
In 1970 there were approximately 500,000 robberies." 60% of which were
armed, and 37%, or 185,000 of which involved firearms.*^ (Several .studies show
that these robberies involving firearms caused a disproiwrtionate amount ot
harm both in property loss and fatalities, but we will not focus our attention on
these ^
Evidence shows that the firearm is an essential element in many armed rob-
beries In its absence, many robberies would not be committetl at all, both because
of the increased difficulty (i.e. it is difficult to rob a bank protected by alarms and
armed guards without a firearm),^" the increa.sed ri.sk to the robber e.g., that
the victim might fight back), and the psychological obstacles. On thi.s las^t point
Dr Donald Newman, in a study of convicted robbers, commissioned by the Na-
tional Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, noted :
"Robberv appears to be a crime made infinitely more possible by having a gun.
To rob without one requires a degree of strength, size and confidence which was
lacking in manv of the men with whom I spoke. ... For the most part the men
involved in robberv were not very aggressive. Some of these men could not pos-
siblv carrv out a robbery without a gun. In short, there was a clear reality element
in the need for a gun once a man made the decision to rob. . . . Although the men
needed a gun to rob. the converse was also true : they needed to rob in order to
use a gun ... it was the gun which provided the power and the opportunity for
°^ A ?erv cautious way to estimate the proportion of firearm robberies "saved"
in a disarmed America, lacking direct data on this, is to use the same proi>ortion
of murders avoided, namely under optimistic assumptions, 45%, pessimistically,
40*7^ There are some reasons that argue that it might be lower (for instance,
robberv is more often pre-meditated than murder and hence the '•appropriate
Sols cLi be related), and there are some reasons to think it "iig^\t bejugher
(e.g. many robbers now armed would not dare climb into a house, let alone face
35 Newton and Zimring, op. cit. pp. 27-28. on nnn innnnn inmiallv fSee
38 Estimates of non-fatal firearm accidents range from 20,000-100,000 annuauy. ^oee
rMri n 9^^ The "savintrs" is calculated as 95% (or 85% of the range
3^ tL f/ciE indicates ?hat in 1970 tliere were .348.000 robberies. (UCR, 1970, as reported
in StVt \bst 1972 op cit p. 143). This is probably considerably below the actual figure
i?nce man roiM.eri^s are not reported to the police, or by the police to the FBI. A national
srvev of \HoO households conducted by the National Opinion Research Center for the
NatioLal C'ommission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, ii^^icated that the rea
numbers of robberies was probably about 1%. times the reported figure (Crtmeso^
Violence on cit D 19) For 1970 this would indicate approximately 500,000 robbenei,.
^\°s'6 out'o^f- lo'ro^beries reported to the UCR v,- ere armed. In turn 63% of the armed
robberies involved firearm.s. (UCR. 1970, oP- cit... p. 15) . Thus 37% (63% of 60%) ot
■ill robberies involved firearms. This means that in 1970 there were roughly 129.000 re-
«oV/e"/ Series involving firearms. If unreported robberies followed similar patterns, the
actual number of robberies involving firearms was closer to ISo.OOO. „, k„„.„„
3flThe percentage of robberies involving firearms is far greater for indoor robberies
(which are more dangerous and lucrative) than for outdoor robberies. See Newton and
ZhnHng op cit p. 47 ; also Crimes of Violence, op. cit., p. .302. Furthermore firearms
are involved more often when a commercial establishment is the location of the rob-
i;erv. See Crimes o/' Vio/ence. op. cit.. p. 302. , , ,,, i, i.i,„„ ^i,.,* f„r
The fatality rate for robberies involving firearms is considerably higher than that tor
unarmed robberies, or robberies involving some other weapon. One study sbowed that in
New York City the fatalitv rate for firearm robberies is nearly 4 times that of other armea
robberies. See Newton and Zimring. op. dt.. p. 47. However, it should be noted that while
the fatnlitu is higher, the injury rate is lower in armed robbery than in unarmed robbery.
Presumably the presence of a weapon intimidates the victim, and he or she is less likely
to resist. See Crimes 0/ Tiofence. op. dt., p. 370. , ,., , ^* it
*" The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of \ iolence survey ol 17
cities included in its weighted sample 649 armed and unarmed robberies. 3% of all armed
rol)beries were bank robl>eries. but not a single case of unarmed bank robbery was reported.
See Crimes of Violence, p. .302. j. ^ i. ^v
"Newton and Zimring, op. cit., p. 47. The complete report is Appendix E of the same
volume.
1326
a guard in a bank, without a weapon). Hence, we will take 5% off from our low
estimate of murder depressent rate, making it a 38% reduction, and add 5% to
our high one, making it 47%, to give us a reasonable range.
Thus, the reduction in firearm robbery would lead us to expect a decline of from
70,300 to 77,000 robberies annually, or 23.4% to 25.9% of all armed rohberies.^-
CUMULATIVE AND SECONDABY EFFECTS, AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION
To be able to judge the combined effects of all three policies, we deal with arrest
figures. We have already calculated the reduction in annual arrests that would
result from the decriminalization of victimless crimes. For other crimes, by sim-
ply assuming that the number of arrests are proportional to the number of crimes,
we can express their reductions in terms of the projected reductions in the num-
ber of arrests. We can then calculate the cumulative reduction from these three
policies combined, modifying the individual reductions to take into account
previous reductions from the other policies, (e.g. if there are fewer younger
offenders because they are at work, this reduces the benefits one can expect
to gain from gun elimination and vice versa.) The cumulative results are shown
in table A. They are expressed in terms of a range, the lower figure based on
the most pessimistic assumptions, the higher on more optimistic ones.
The table shows that we can project a reduction in the number of arrests, here
used as an indicator of the number of crimes committed, using the most pessimis-
tic assumptions, of from 4.2% for unarmed robbery, to 29.3% for armed robbery,
and 24.9% for murder. The total reduction in arrests would be 32.6%, a reduction
of over 2 million arrests annually. Using more optimistic assumptions, the reduc-
tions would range from 4.4% for unarmed robbery, to 47.5% for murder, and
40.5% for armed robbery. The total reduction in annual arrests would be 35.4%,
or 2,322,758 arrests.
The large reduction in both crime and arrests will free a large amount of police
resources presently devoted to the investigation of these crimes, the arrest of the
offenders, and the post-arrest procedures of detention, trial, and punishment.
Since the reductions are in all types of crimes, including both crimes demanding
a great deal of resources, such as murder, and crimes involving few resoui-ces,
such as drunkenness, we can assume that the average resources currently devoted
to these reduced crimes is proportional to the resources used for all crimes in
general. We can thus say that there will be a freeing of between 32.6% and
35.4% of the police resources devoted directly to patrol, investigation and arrest
as a result of the three measures outlines. These resources will now be free to
deal with the prevention, and investigation, of the remaining criminal violations.
Even assuming that crime declines proportionately only 15% as much as police
resources will increase, this will mean an additional 4.9-5.3% reduction in crime
rates, after the initial reductions. This would amount to a reduction in terms of
the current crime rate of another 3.3-3.4%. The total reduction, including primary
and secondary effects, would thus amount to 35.9-38.8% of the current arrests
annually.
While throughout these projections we were as cautious as possible in esti-
mating their benefits, we are the first to point out that any such projections are
subject to a margin of error. But it must also be dear that even if the crime
reduction achieved would be lower than expected, the benefits of the suggested
policies would be very substantial.
*- 70,.SO0 (reduction) =38% of 185,000 (number of firearms robberies).
77,000 = 47% of 185.000.
23.4% =70, .300/300,000 (number of armed robberies annually) .
25.9% =77,000/300,000.
1327
<
1 =
- I
o .csj .fjy -o •
-CNJ .CM ^— < -'^
— * I CO I o ' — * J,
' • I .1 • I
a^ CO I — CO
CNJ
oi
"-^ . r-. . ^ • f*^ _;
( I .CO _co -^7
oo • ) r^ I CNJ T i'^
<^ 'a- ro . (-3 . CNJ .
r-^ <T in — * po J2
--• CO o^ CO U3 "
in ^ ltT
OOincDOtDd'*'^
r;;- . r-H .^- -^^ ,^*
'jp«*r-*inmfoo!>
I I --^ .-"^r -'=a'
<>JcoLn I un I tp '
•^ - 1 CO ' (X> T CT>
un ^ ro . C5 • c*J •
r^ Olooo ocy
^^ ** CT> CO in T
in ^ irT
.0 = 0 = a; =-g =-5
"•-O"*— 0T30 2?<->
(i>
s^
2<S
-iiS-n S; 3 I"
•.=• to OS
■a
n3
■o *z
< Q-
tt'O
Ei:
2e
■■gg :"
2i-g = = =
"o 2. " <^ "
■£ -I-] <u o a>
"O ZD
n — t
=><
E
fn
"oj
0
a.
=3
TO
0
c
com^^p-.co.*t>cocM
r- CO .t— 1 .C3 ..— «
^3-C)— <-HfOT I t£) t
- -CO - I -co -CNJ
^ <^ ^-^o^ .in
r^cD ^ ..—I »-«
CVJ^ I t
00 ^
m in CO
'—CO
too r-
- -co
ir>^
■SE
CM
CO 1-^ CO CSJ CO lO
CO .0 . .— • .
CT> 01 ^T 00 l£> to
^^oooi^in^-*
CNJ , ,— 1 .,— .
I 00 1 f^ [ tX)
30 ^
in
r«-in
in CO
CO .
-co
CD
(0
O
cm"
CM^H
- [
I .
LDOO
CM
CO
roo»^
• CM .
in — CO
I . I
CT> in CO
.CM
^r CMCO
-in
CM CO
' o =
(O h_ 0}
<D C Q,
2(£
E-^
Q. 0.0
g C « C = =
*- O^O o *> o
k_ QJ l_ — _
ist; 2? = c -"s
o oj ^ a* — <i>
■s;i: -o ^ <j TOO
CO >»
or
T3
CD
<
3<
95-158 O - 73 - pt. 3
24
1328
Statement by National Council of Jewish Women, Inc., New Yoek, N.Y.
The National Council of Jewish Women, an oi-ganization established in 1893,
and with a membership of over 100,000 in local Sections throughout the United
States, has concerned itself with justice for children for a number of decades.
Since its inception, our organization has provided help for children in trouble.
In our verj' first decade Sections provided remedial work in connection with ju-
venile and other courts. A Council probation officer for Jewish delinquent chil-
dren was accepted in a Municipal Court in 1906, and by 1911 several other Sec-
tions were providing this service. At present an estimated 35 Sections are active
in the juvenile justice system. Some are active in social action programs — spon-
soring public meetings, testifying on proposed state legislation. Many are pro-
viding sendees — education, tutoring, vocation, recreation — in detention centers
and training schools. One Section sponsors three residences for teenage girls who
have been in trouble with the law.
In the Spring of 1972, in over 125 communities across the country, members
of the National Council of Jewish Women began their year long study of Justice
for Children. They have review their local laws, interviewed judges, lawyers,
policemen, administrators, social workers, educators, fi-ieuds and critics of the
juvenile justice system. They have visited courts, detention centers, training
schools and other institutions and have sponsored forums, debates and public
discussions.
On the basis of their research they have recommended the following program
of action for the National Council of Jewisli Women. The program, endorsed at
the NCJWs National Convention, includes children's right, group homes and
justice for children coalitions for action.
While detailed tabulation of the study continues, the basic findings which
prompted these choices can be summarized as follows :
children's rights
One of the major problems both in terms of the number of children affected
and the harm outweighing the benefits is the area of status offense. The statutes
involved are discriminatory and vague. They make it a crime for a child — and
only for a child— to be "incorrigible," or "unruly," or "stubborn," or to "habitually
idle away his or her time." The crime of truancy is frequently committed by
youngsters when their reading ability is four or five years below grade level.
We are more likely to jail a runaway child than deal with his intolerable home
situation.
In some jurisdictions, we may call these children Pins, Chins, Mins or Jins,
instead of delinquents, but we are deceiving no one. We still jail them, give them
records, and send them to training schools. Many training school administrators
have been quite candid about the children in their care "who really don't belong
here." We agree. As one report noted, "It can be said that the biggest help an
institution gives a Pins is help in moving upward in the penal system."
Commission after commission has urged that these laws be changed. The Presi-
dent's Commission on Law Enforcement in 1967 : "Serious consideration should be
given complete elimination from the court's jurisdiction of conduct illegal only
for a child . . . We must bluntly ask what our present power achieves and must
acknowledge in answer that at the most we do not really know, and in at least
some cases we suspect it may do as much harm as good." The White House Con-
ference on Children in 1970: "Children's offenses that would not be crimes if
committed by an adult — such as runaway, truancy, curfew violation and incor-
rigibility— should not be processed through the court system, but diverted to
community resources." And most recently the National Advisory Committee on
Criminal Justice Standards and Goals in 1973 summarized : The standards pre-
scribe (consistent with other recent national studies) that only tho.se youths who
have committed acts that would be criminal if committed by adults should be
subject to the delinquency jurisdiction of the courts.
It is time our laws reflected these recommendations.
Preventive detention of children is common with few detainees meeting the
criteria of being either potential dangers to the community or possible runaways.
They are frequently held for periods considerably longer than those recom-
mended in any guideline. Three month stays in detention are not unusual. Some
children have been held up to two years awaiting placement. Since detention
is supposed to be short term the programs provided are minimal, particularly in
education. Long stays are truly lost time.
1329
There are still many areas of this country where children are detained in
adult jails. Since the jails are usually required by law to separate children from
adults, and since jail facilities are limited, this means that a detained child is
practically in solitary confinement. We don't believe the solution lies in further
construction of large'maximum security juvenile detention centers. Most of these
communities could do the job with small residential-type facilities and more
discriminating detention policies.
The Supreme Court Gault decision is commonly understood to have estab-
lished the child's right to be represented in court by counsel. However, we find
that in a number of communities children appear in court without a lawyer.
One judge told us that while 75 percent of the children who appeared in his court
weren't represented, the figure in surrounding counties was about 10 percent.
We find judges suggesting the child waive his right to counsel ; some say they
provide counsel "if the child asks for it." We doubt that a child is compentent to
make this decision. Of course, the problem of providing adequate counsel to
indigent children is further complicated by the termination of neighborhood
OEO legal services programs.
A further matter of concern is the transfer of children from juvenile to adult
criminal courts. As we oppose juvenile courts eagerly assuming the responsibili-
ties of schools and parents, so do we oppose those courts which with equal
willingness give up what we believe are their appropriate duties.
If a child is removed from his home and community it is theoretically to provide
him with a level of care and treatment which he did not otherwise receive, but
if he is having problems with the family — the most common crime children com-
mit— the chances are quite good that his training school will be inaccessible to
his parents and at least as good that no counseling will be provided the family
to pave the way for his return. For older children who are not likely to return
to school upon release, vocational training is inadequate. The child with emotional
problems will find therapeutic services limited. Despite acknowledged wide-
spread addiction, narcotics programs are rare, although in some instances 20
or 30 percent of the children may be oflBcially on prescribed drugs to make man-
agement easier.
Children requiring intensive mental health services have additional difficulties.
Hospitals, unaccustomed or unwilling to accept disruptive children turn them
back to the correction facility as quickly as possible. Indeed, we feel all proce-
dures which shuttle children back and forth in this manner deserve scrutiny.
Other procedures we have found within the institutional system which concern
us include the use of solitary confinement (even if it is called "meditation room"
or "intensive treatment unit"), the transfer to more secure facilities without
hearings, censorship of mail, etc.
Ombudsmen programs may provide one solution but these are still experi-
mental and their progress should be followed.
As for children's arrest and court records, it seems general practice that they
are officially confidential but unofficially accessible. We have been told of their
availability to colleges, prospective employers and the armed forces. They are
not only subject to local misuse, but to the extent they become part of a national
records system, the problem increases. The need for adequate assurance of
confidentiality and expungement procetlures is clear. Furthermore, police rec-
ords on juveniles may group serious criminal offenses leading to arrest with
minor street encounters leading to no further action. Thus the fact that a child
"has a police record" tells us less than it implies. We think safegimrds are needed
in relation to : what matters merit inscription, what kind of notice parents re-
ceive of such inscription, and what opportunity is provided to answer allegations
which othera^ise may repose for years unchallenged in police files.
GROUP HOMES
The inappropriate use of detention and training school facilities is due not
only to the laws but to the alternatives. We have seen children in detention for
weeks and months because they had "inadwiuate home.s or no place to go." I'olice
have told us of the need for temi>orary housing for youngsters having problems
at home, "sometimes we have no one else to call except a family they are already
in trouble with." An administrator spoke about the girls in one institution. "Some
are erroneously placed here because no other facility exists. This includes some
whose primary problem is a bad family situation or pregnancy."
1330
The need for group homes, particularly for teenagers, is almost universal
Children whose personal or family problems are at the crisis point are not crimi-
nals and should not be deported from their communities. Thev do not S
institutions; they are frequently harmed by institutions. The"y just need a
different place to live for a few days or perhaps a couple of months
Communities must be helped to understand these children's needs so that thev
can accept them as "neighbors." The provision of such non-punitive facilities for
runaways has been threatened in some areas by opponents who characteSzed
hese facilities as "contributing to the delinquency of a minor." Obviously an
intensive effort is necessary to provide a receptive climate
fv. u",^, ^'^'"^ programs should also make appropriate ser\'ices available to both
the children and the families during the period of separation.
JUSTICE FOB CHILDREN COALITIONS FOR ACTION
Obviously both Children's rights and group homes require community support
and cooperation if they are to be established. There is much that interestwl and
drn^.Tu:?iSTorc5;ji7- '^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^-^^^^^ ^-«- *- '^^'
Insure that children have available to them the health, guidance, family
counseling, educational and employment services they need ^dmuy
.<£^.^"^'"^^ """?• '"''?''"'I ^^"^ delivery of these services to provide a prompt and
effective alternative to channelling problems into the judicial system
t ew communities provide adequate service systems now. Such services as exist
are frequently scattered uncoordinated and understaffed. The problem is bein-
compounded as some federally-financetl programs are cut and the battle for
revenue sharing funds must be waged if thev are to survive
no]!!.?''''^-^^^" ^""^^ '" """"^ ^*^*^ "^^^ «^^ ^«^t is that many of our children in
SeafwfthS^ ne'eds '' ™"'' ''"'"^ "^ ^' """"'"'^^ ^"'^'^ '""-^ ^""^^^^ ^^ ™^^^^ *«
If we care about our children, and if we care about justice, it is time to prove it.
[The following letter was subsequently received from Judge
opetirs cj
U.S. District Court,
Western District of Texas,
Hon. CLAUDE PEPPER, ^"^ ^"'""'"' ^"^•' ^^^ ^^' '^^^■
Chairman Select Committee on Crime, House of Representatives. Congress of
the United States, Washington, D.C.
Dear Congressman Pepper: You will recall that I stated during my testi-
mony before the Select Committee on Crime that I thought that the State of
Washington had adopted some aspects of the omnibus hearing project
l.nclosed herewith are copies of several pages from the Official Advance Sheets
A\ ashington Reports, dated May 11, 1973, which contain Rule 4.5 of the recently
adopted Criminal Rules for the Superior Court of the State of Washington
With best personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
Adrian A. Spears,
U.S. District Judge.
Rule 4.5 — Omnibus Hearing
(a) When required. When a plea of not guilty is entered, the court may set a
tune for an omnibus hearing.
(b) Time. The time .set for the omnibus hearing shall allow sufficient time for
counsel to (i) initiate and complete discovery; (ii) conduct further investiga-
tion of the case, as needed; and (iii) continue plea discussions.
(c) Checklist. At the omnibus hearing, the trial court on its own initiative
utilizing a checklist substantially in the form of the omnibus application by
plaintiff and defendant ( see section ( h ) ) shall :
(i) ensure that standards regarding provision of counsel have been complied
with ;
1331
(ii) ascertain whether the parties have completed discovery and, if not, make
orders appropriate to expedite completion ;
(iii) make rulinss on any motions, other requests then pending, and ascertain
whether and additional motions, or requests will be made at the hearing or
continued portions thereof;
(iv) ascertain whether there are any procedural or constitutional issues which
should be considered ;
(v) upon agreement of counsel, or upon finding that the trial is likely to be
protracted or otherwise unusually complicated, set a time for a pretrial con-
ference ; and
(vi) permit defendant to change his plea.
(d) Motions. All motions and other requests prior to trial should ordinarily
be reserved for and presented orally at the omnibus hearing unless the court
otherwise directs. Failure to raise or give notice at the hearing of any error or
issue of which the party concerned has knowledge may constitute waiver of
such error or issue. Checklist forms substantially like the memorandum required
by section (h) shall be made available by the court and utilized at the hearing
to ensure that all requests, errors and issues are then considered.
(e) Continuance. Any and all issues should be raised either by counsel or
by the court without prior notice, and if appropriate, informally disi)osed of.
If additional discovery, investigation or preparation, or evidentiary hearing, or
formal presentation is necessary for a fair and orderly determination of any
issue, the omnibus hearing should be continued from time to time until all
matters raised are properly disposed of.
(f) Record. A verbatim record (electronic, mechanical or otherwise) shall be
made of all proceedings at the hearing.
(g) Stipulations. Stipulations by any party .shall be binding upon that party
at trial unless set aside or modified by the court in the interests of justice.
(h) Memorandum. At the conclusion of the hearing, a summary memorandum
shall be made indicating disclosure made, rulings and orders of the court, stipu-
lations, and any other matters determined or pending. Such summary memo-
randum shall be in substantially the following form :
Copy received and date filed by clerk :
Superior Court of Washington for County, State of Wash-
ington, Plaintiff, versus , Defendant.
No. , Omnibus application by plaintiff and defendant.
Date:
Notice to :
Purpose : To prepare for trial or plea and to determine the extent of discovery
to be granted to each party.
I
Motion By Defendant
Comes now the defendant and makes the applications or motions checked
off below :
1. To dismiss for failure of the indictment (of information) to state an
offense. Granted Denied
2. To sever defendant's case and for separate trial.
3. To sever counts and for a separate trial.
4. To make more definite and certain.
5. For discovery of all oral, written or recorded statements made by defendant
to investigating ofiicers or to third parties and in the possession of the plaintiff.
B. For discovery of the names and addresses of plaintiff's witnesses and their
statements.
7. To inspect physical or documentary evidence in plaintiff's possession.
8. To suppre.ss physical evidence in plaintiff's possession because of (1) illegal
search, (2) illegal arrest. Hearing set for
9. For a hearing under Rule 3.5.
10. To suppress evidence of the identification of the defendant.
11. To take the deposition of witnesses.
12. To secure the appearance of a witness at trial or hearing.
13. To inquire into the conditions of pretrial release. Affirmed
Modified to
1332
To Require the Prosecution
14. To state —
(a) If there was an informer involved :
(b) Whether he will be called as a witness at the trial ; and,
(c) To state the name and address of the informer or claim the privilege.
15. To disclose evidence in plaintiff's possession, favorable to defendant on the
issue of guilt.
16. To disclose whether it will rely on prior acts or convictions of a similar
nature for proof of knowledge or intent.
17. To advise whether any expert witness will be called, and if so supply- —
( a ) Name of witness, qualifications and subject of testimony ;
(b) Report.
18. To supply any reports or tests of physical or mental examinations in the
control of the prosecution.
19. To supply any reports of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons and
other reports to exi^erts in the control of the prosecution, pertaining to this
case.
20. To permit inspection and copying of any books, papers, documents, photo-
graphs or tangible objects which the prosecution —
(a) Obtained from or belonging to the defendant, or
(b) Which will be used at the hearing or trial.
21. To supply any information known concerning a prior conviction of per-
sons whom the prosecution intends to call as witnesses at the hearing or trial.
22. To inform the defendant of any information he has indicating entrapment
of the defendant.
Dated:
Attorney for Defendant
II
Motion By Plaintiff
The plaintiff makes the application or motions checked :
1. Defendant to state the general nature of his defense.
2. Defendant to state whether or not he will rely on an alibi and, if so, to
furnish a list of his alibi witnesses and their addresses. Granted
Denied __.
3. Defendant to state whether or not he will rely on a defense of insanity at
the time of the offense.
(a) If so, defendant to supply the name(s) of his witness (es) on the issue,
both lay and professional.
(b) If so, defendant to permit the prosecution to inspect and copy all medi-
cal reports under his control or the control of his attorney.
(c) Defendant will also state whether or not he will submit to a psychiatric
examination by a doctor selected by the prosecution.
4. Defendant to furnish results of scientific tests, experiments or comparisons
and the names of persons who conducted the tests.
5. Defendant to appear in a lineup.
6. Defendant to speak for voice identification by witnesses.
7. Defendant to be fingerprinted.
8. Defendant to pose for photographs (not involving a reenactment of the
crime).
9. Defendant to try on articles of clothing.
10. Defendant to permit taking of specimens of material under fingernails.
11. Defendant to permit taking samples of blood, hair and other materials of
his body which involve no unreasonable intrusion thereof.
12. Defendant to provide samples of his handwriting.
13. Defendant to submit to a physical external inspection of his body.
14. Defendant to state whether there is any claim of incompetency to stand
trial.
15. For discovery of the names and addresses of defendant's witnesses and
their statements.
16. To inspect physical or documentary evidence in defendant's possession.
17. To take the deposition (s) of witness (es).
18. To secure the appearance of a witness at trial or hearing.
1333
19. Defendant to state whether his prior convictions will be stipulated or
need be proved.
20. Defendant to state whether he will stipulate to the continuous chain of
custody of evidence from acquisition to trial.
Dated:
Prosecuting Attorney
It is so ordered this day of
Comment : Supersedes ROW 10.46.030 in part.
Judge
Rule 4.6 — Depositions
(a) When Taken. Upon a showing that a prospective witness may be unable
to attend or prevented from attending a trial or hearing or if a witness refuses
to discuss the case with either counsel and that his testimony is material and
that it is necessary to take his deposition in order to prevent a failure of justice
the court at any time after the filing of an indictment or information may upon
motion of a party and notice to the parties order that his his testimony be taken
by deposition and that any designated books, papers, documents or tangible
objects, not privileged, be produced at the same time and place.
(b) Notice of Taking. The party at whose instance a deposition is to be taken
shall give to every other party reasonable written notice of the time and place
for taking the deposition. The notice shall state the name and address of each
person to be examined. On motion of a party upon whom the notice is served,
the court for cause showing may extend or shorten the time and may change
the place of taking.
(c) How Taken. A deposition shall be taken in the manner provided in civil
actions. No deposition shall be used in
Chairman Pepper. The Congress has sought through its omnibus
crime control legishition to encourage the States to approach the
problems of crime control on a comprehensive basis. Our hearings,
particularly these hearings on the various aspects of street crime, have
emphasized the need for an overall approach to the criminal justice
system.
I am pleased, therefore, that the Governor of my own State, the
Honorable Reubin O'D. Askew, has adopted this approach and has
recommended to the 1973 Florida Legislature a comprehensive pro-
gram for reform and improvement of the criminal justice system of
the State. I believe his message would be of interest in other States
and I request that it be included in these hearings.
[The message referred to follows :]
ICThere is much
of which
to be proud.
But much
more
remains
to be clone...99
Governor
Reubin O'D. Askew
Special Message on Criminal Justice
to the Florida Legislature, April 16, 1973.
(1885)
1336
Governor's Supplementary Message
on Florida's Criminal Justice System
The Constitution of Florida reposes in the office of Governor
a profound public trust. It invests the office witli broad powers
and charges the holder with solemn duties. I am not unmindful
of the great privilege which is mine to hold — in passing, as
it were — at the sufferance of the electorate of this great state.
Neither am I unmindful of the singular and correlative duty
imposed upon me as the Chief Magistrate of this State "to
take care that the laws be faithfully executed." But, as I am
sure you will agree, this executive duty was not cast nor does
it now exist in the solitude of a constitutional vacuum.
To the contrary, it is a duty to the citizens of Florida which
cannot possibly be fulfilled without the cooperation and assist-
ance of the Legislative and Judicial Branches; without the aid
and advice of my colleagues in the Executive Branch, most
notably, the Cabinet; without the untiring service of thousands
of dedicated governmental officers and employees; and finally
without the interest and support of the citizens themselves.
With these thoughts in mind, I take this opportunity to
share with you my views regarding the deficiencies which beset
Florida's criminal justice system and my recommendations of
the means to improve the system to the end that our laws may
be more faithfully executed and the lofty goals of our fore-
fathers may be fully realized.
SPECIAL MESSAGE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE
In the area of criminal justice over the past few years, we
have met new challenges and achieved significant results. There
is much of which to be proud. But much more remains to be
done if we are to have a system of criminal justice that is
not only effective but also just, and not only concerned about
statistical accomplishments but also committed to upholding
the dignity of persons it serves.
During this session, the Legislature has a unique opportunity
to address problems that for too long have gone untreated and
to continue the reform which you have initiated in the recent
past.
A source of gratification to all is the report of crime trends
in Florida which is soon to be released by the Florida Depart-
ment of Law Enforcement. The report will show an appreci-
able downturn of 5.3% in the rate of violent and property
crimes in Florida. Along with this improvement, we can also
take comfort in knowing that last year the percentage of
crimes cleared by arrest increased by over 9% in Florida. For
1337
this accomplishment we owe tribute to the hundreds of dedi-
cated law enforcement officers who serve throughout our State.
While these statistics are encouraging, the absolute number
of crimes is still intolerable. The cost of crime in dollar and
human terms is far too much for the health of Florida. Last
year, for example, victims of property crimes in Florida suf-
fered more than $77 million in unrecovered property losses.
More than 900 persons were murdered, and thousands of Flor-
ida residents were permanently traumatized as victims of rape,
robbery, aggravated assaults, and other serious crimes.
Drug abuse continues to be a serious problem in our state.
Arrests for sale of narcotics and dangerous drugs increased
by more than 26% in 1972 over the previous year, while arrests
for possession increased by more than 53%. We must continue
and improve our treatment, rehabilitative and enforcement pro-
grams in this area.
To provide agencies in these areas and others in the crim-
inal justice system with the necessary resources, I have pro-
posed in my recommended budget for fiscal year 1973-1974
an overall increase of more than 25% in appropriations for
criminal justice operations. By function, the recommended
budget calls for more than a 53 7o increase in appropriations for
programs dealing with the actual reduction of criminal activ-
ity, a 27% increase for programs dealing with the prosecution
and defense and nearly a 23% increase for institutional and
community-based rehabilitation programs.
We cannot succeed in our efforts to control crime and im-
prove our system of criminal justice if adequate resources are
not provided. For that reason I urge you to approve the recom-
mended budget which I have submitted.
In addition to providing adequate resources, we must also
review the adequacy of our laws and make changes where cir-
cumstances warrant. Only through such a comprehensive ap-
proach will we improve our chances of successfully meeting
the changing challenge of crime in Florida.
ORGANIZED CRIME
Organized crime is a disease that feeds on the weakness of
man. It affects each one of us in many direct and indirect ways.
By its illegal gambling operations it earns millions of dol-
lars which serve as the "seed money" for its other illicit ac-
tivities. Estimates of organized crime revenue from gambling
are staggering. In 1967 the President's Crime Commission es-
1338
timated that illegal gambling nationwide provides organized
crime with between $7 billion and $50 billion in gross annual
proceeds. If we assume that $7 billion, as the low figure in
that range, is a realistic estimate of organized crime's gross
"take" from gambling, we are saying the organized crime has
gambling revenues amounting to more than $800 thousand
every hour of every day. It is not unreasonable to assume that
organized crime revenue from illegal gambling in Florida
amounts to at least one-fiftieth of those national figures — or
a gross annual revenue from illegal gambling in Florida of
$140,000,000. Because Florida is the ninth largest state, it is
likely that this gross figure may be greater.
While gambling may be organized crime's major source of
income, it is by no means the sole source. Organized criminal
rings, some of which operate with the support of hard core
organized crime groups, are responsible for a large part of
the drug importation and distribution activities in the nation
and in Florida. From this enterprise it is estimated that hun-
dreds of millions of dollars are generated for the coffers of or-
ganized crime.
But the financial consequences to our society from this vi-
cious racket pale by comparison to the human consequences.
While we should be disturbed by the large sums of money
which organized crime derives from its drug importations, we
must not lose sight of the incalculable harm caused to society
by the ravages of drug abuse and its consequences. These con-
sequences include shattered lives and dreams of thousands of
families and billions of dollars in property crimes committed
by addicts who must feed their expensive habits on a daily
basis. The addict generally does not meet that expense from
legitimate means but resorts instead to theft, and here again
organized crime serves as a willing partner by providing fenc-
ing outlets for the conversion of stolen property into cash for
the purchase of drugs.
Loansharking — the lending of money at criminally usurious
rates — is another of the lucrative illegal activities of organized
crime which affects each of us. The loanshark preys on the
poor and rich alike, and the consequences of his activities
cause ripples and waves throughout our economy. The loan-
shark victim, upon failure to repay, may lose his business to
the loanshark or be forced into the crime of embezzlement out
of fear of the retribution he knows may be inflicted. Once in
control of a captured business, a loanshark may fleece the
concern of its assets and subsequently take refuge under our
bankruptcy laws. Nationwide, the loanshark racket is esti-
mated to generate at least $300 million annually to organized
crime, and again it is not unreasonable to assume that at
least one-fiftieth of that amount is derived in Florida.
1339
These illegal activities of organized crime not only provide
millions of dollars in untaxed profits, but also establish ave-
nues toward "respectability" for the racketeer element by en-
abling the infiltration of legitimate business through outright
purchase. Few if any types of business are immune to these
incursions. A study by the Internal Revenue Service a few
years ago revealed that of 113 publicly identified racketeers
investigated, 98 of them had control of or a significant inter-
est in 159 different enterprises. There is strong evidence to
indicate that organized crime infiltration of legitimate business
in Florida is a problem of growing magnitude.
But of all the consequences of organized crime the most dev-
estating is the official corruption it causes. The late J. Edgar
Hoover accurately stated that "organized crime cannot exist
in a community without the protection of corrupt officials and
the blessings of an apathetic public whose sense of morals has
been dulled to blindness." No effort to deal with organized
crime can be complete without a concomitant program to assure
integrity in government.
STATEWIDE GRAND JURY
Much more can be said about organized crime than is con-
tained in this short listing of abuses it inflicts on the people
of Florida. It is sufficient to say that a highly sophisticated,
diversified and widespread force operates in our state today.
Loud voices and good intentions will not eliminate it. Only
carefully conceived, sound, and well-executed plans will. The
burden of finding solutions is on those of us who have been
elected to lead.
Having evaluated the status of our effort against organized
crime, I have concluded that more than anything else our
evidence-gathering process is in need of improvement. While,
in most respects, our substantive laws may be adequate in
their coverage of illegal activities of organized crime, the laws
are not self-executing. As you know, I have recommended a
statewide grand jury which would provide us with an effective
evidence-gathering tool and immeasurably improve our ability
to detect organized criminal activity and indict members of
organized crime.
The activities and consequences of organized crime are mat-
ters of statewide significance and concern. County and circuit
boundaries are not respected by an organized crime group which
conducts bookmaking or other gambling operations with selling,
collection and "lay-off" contacts in many counties; or by a
drug ring which imports narcotics in one county, processes
them in another, sells them in a third and maintains its head-
1340
quarters in a fourth; or by an organized criminal group which
receives from another state the proceeds of an illegal operation
and invests those funds in a number of our counties in at-
tempts to "launder" the money and provide "legitimate" fronts
for illegitimate operations.
Consequently, we need a mechanism that is able to investigate
these activities on a statewide basis since they unquestionably
have state wide impact.
When one considers that our 67 counties range in size from
the smallest, with 301 square miles, to the largest, with 2,578
square miles, and range in population from approximately 3,000
residents to nearly 1.3 million, it becomes clearer that the single
county approach to dealing with multicounty criminal activity
is inadequate.
•
The proposed bill establishing the statewide grand jury not
only has great promise of achieving significant results, but
also contains numerous checks, balances and safeguards against
abuse and manipulation. In fact, the statewide grand jury I
propose has added safeguards which are not contained in either
the Federal law which authorizes special grand juries or in the
laws of other states which have statewide grand juries.
We have been cautious in drafting the proposed bill to pre-
vent vulnerability to manipulation and abuse, and have created
what some might call a "cumbersome" mechanism.
Two of our sister states — Colorado and New Jersey — have in-
stituted statewide grand juries within the past few years. In
each state the results have been salutary and the evaluation
positive. For example, since 1968 when a statewide grand jury
system was established in New Jersey, that state has empaneled
nine statewide grand juries. As of May, 1972, the New Jersey
statewide grand jury had returned 204 indictments resulting in
110 convictions. In the first two months of this year an addi-
tional 14 indictments have been returned. The types of multi-
jurisdictional offenses covered by the indictments include gambl-
ing, large scale narcotics operations, extortion, loansharking and
bribery.
The experience of these states clearly underscores the fact
that as an institution for gathering evidence in organized crime
investigations a grand jury is without counterpart. But to be
truly effective in such cases a grand jury must have a geo-
graphic jurisdiction which is capable of adequately exploring
multicounty activities of organized crime. Currently, our law
only authorizes grand juries with jurisdiction to inquire into
offenses which are triable within the boundaries of a county.
Under certain circumstances a grand jury may be moved from
1341
the county where the triable offense allegedly occurred. In an
organized crime operation covering a number of counties and
judicial circuits, separate grand juries must be empaneled in
each of the counties where offenses are committed.
A dramatic example of how this situation can cause a serious
hindrance to the enforcement of state laws is presented by the
recent case involving key figures in a Central Florida based
gambling conspiracy. After extensive investigation by Florida
law enforcement and prosecutive agencies in Central Florida, it
was a Federal grand jury and not a Florida grand jury which
returned indictments. One of the basic reasons for this was that
a Federal grand jury had the geographic scope to investigate
into the entire matter and to return indictments irrespective of
the county or circuit where offenses were committed. Despite
the expenditure of thousands of dollars and hundreds of man-
hours by state agencies in developing this significant organized
crime gambling case, the state deferred to the Federal Govern-
ment for purposes of prosecution of Federal crimes due, in large
measure to our fragmented and patchwork grand jury structure.
Inter-governmental cooperation as evidenced in this case and
others should be applauded. At the same time, however, we must
bear in mind that Federal prosecutive and investigative priori-
ties may not coincide with those of our state. Matters investi-
gated and developed by Florida agencies and referred to Federal
grand juries often may stand in line while Fedral agencies ac-
complish their primary mission — the enforcement of Federal
laws. We have a legitimate interest in assuring that state laws
are enforced and the only way to assure that is to have a self-
sufficient capability.
What does it profit us to have law proscribing certain con-
duct and setting penalties for violation if our investigative
and prosecutive mechanisms are not equipped to effectively
enforce them? There should be no need for our state to forego
prosecutions for reasons that are well within the power of the
Legislature to correct.
Under the bill I shall propose, a statewide grand jury could
be empaneled only with approval by the Supreme Court upon
a petition filed by the Governor seeking such empaneling and
setting forth good and sufficient reasons for the empanelment.
The term of the grand jury would be delineated by the
Supreme Court for a period of up to twelve months, subject
to extension for up to six months by the Supreme Court upon
petition by a majority of the grand jurors or by the grand
jury's legal advisor.
1342
The statewide grand jury would have geographic jurisdic-
tion extending throughout the state. Its subject matter juris-
diction would be limited to the investigation of organized crime
which is defined in the bill as "matters involving incidents which
occur or have occurred in two or more counties as part of
related transactions."
An indictment returned by the statewide grand jury would
be certified for trial in the county where the offense was com-
mitted, thus safeguarding the defendant's constitutionally
guaranteed right of venue. To preserve the independence of the
grand jury, the bill provides that the foreman and deputy
foreman shall be elected by the grand jurors themselves.
The legal advisor to the statewide grand jury would be
a state attorney designated by the Governor, subject to the
approval of the Supreme Court.
The statewide grand jury would be composed of eligible
potential jurors randomly drawn on a population basis from
certified jury lists of the several counties. To assure that the
grand jury is composed of a cross-sampling of residents from
different parts of the state, the bill restricts to one-quarter of
the entire composition the number of grand jurors who may
residents of any one judicial circuit.
Under this bill, judicial supervision of the statewide grand
jury would be exercised by a judge of the circuit court as-
signed for that purpose by the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court.
All of these are important safeguards which will effectively
guarantee that the statewide grand jury will properly be used,
and in addition, serve as a symbol of our State's tough posture
against organized crime.
The statewide grand jury would not expand the substantive
powers now reposed in county grand juries. Rather it would
merely have an expanded geographical jurisdiction and be
limited to inquiry into organized crime matters which are not
confined to a single county.
It would be a valuable mechanism in dealing with complex
and lengthy investigations requiring the undivided attention of
the statewide grand jury. It would be a valuable tool in com-
bating organized crime which respects no county boundaries.
It would be an important vehicle for dealing with organized
crime activities of statewide impact and concern.
The severity of the organized crime problem requires and
the people of Florida deserve no less than the realistic approach
embodied in this proposal. I urge you to enact, at this session,
legislation creating the statewide grand jury described above.
1343
COUNTY GRAND JURY
Creation of a statewide grand jury does not obviate the need
to improve our law dealing with county grand juries. In most
respects, Chapter 905 of the Florida Statutes which deals with
county grand juries has not been revised since 1939. During
the intervening thirty-four years, the complexity of crime has
increased and the complexion of our criminal justice system
has drastically changed.
In keeping with the spirit of criminal code revision, I be-
lieve that we should take this opportunity to streamline and
clarify Chapter 90B along the lines that I shall set forth in a
proposed bill.
IMMUNITY
In complex and wide-ranging Investigations, few evidence-
gathering tools are as effective as the grant to a witness of
immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony initially
refused on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination.
As a tool of evidence-gathering, immunity dates back to 18th
Century England. It is founded on the premise that the privilege
against self-incrimination, as the well-known expert on evi-
dence, Dean Wigmore, noted, is "merely an option of refusal
not a prohibition of inquiry."
Particularly in complex investigations, notably those involv-
ing organized crime, a "wall of silence" is created by key
potential witnesses. The wall is constructed of two materials.
First is the internal discipline of organized criminal groups
which make their members well aware of the fate that awaits
them if they testify. Second is the privilege against self-
incrimination. What many jurisdictions, including the Federal
Government, have recognized is that the wall of silence can
be penetrated by affording adequate protection to witnesses
and by enacting laws which guarantee, by the provisions of
immunity statutes, that testimony compelled will not be used
against the witness in a criminal proceeding.
Florida now has what is known as a "transactional" im-
munity statute which cloaks a witness with an absolute insula-
tion from prosecution for any transaction or matter about which
he has testified. This immunity from prosecution has been
construed to be applicable even if law enforcement investiga-
tion subsequently uncovers totally independent and unrelated
evidence of the witness' complicity in the offense about which
he was compelled to testify, and even if the witness's state-
ment is not used against him.
95
-158 O - 73 - pt. 3 -- 25
1344
The problem with transactional immunity has been that if
it is applied erroneously or without knowledge of the witnesses*
offenses in other jurisdictions, it can seriously impede effective
law enforcement and prosecution.
To improve the evidence-gathering capabilities of our State
Attorneys, to assure that grants of immunity are made with
full knowledge of a witness' background and possible violations
in other circuits, and to safeguard the privilege against self-
incrimination, I shall propose that you enact a measure that
will continue the granting of transactional immunity by State
Attorneys, but only after prior approval is obtained from the
Governor, as the Chief Magistrate of the State under the Con-
stitution. The Office of Governor would serve primarily as a
"clearinghouse" for the necessary information to insure that
blankets of immunity are not used to thwart other jurisdictional
interests in the defendant.
CRIMINAL CODE REVISION
One of the most far-feaching opportunities before this Legis-
lature is the opportunity to modernize our body of substantive
criminal law. We are now in the third phase of Criminal Code
Revision. We have already seen the adoption of new rules of
criminal procedure by the Florida Supreme Court, and the
Legislature recently made great progress in enacting uniform
penalties for substantive crimes and in repealing some needless
criminal statutes. I commend the Supreme Court and the 1971
Legislature for those great strides. But the major task in Code
Revision is still ahead — the revision of Title 44, the Florida
Criminal Code.
In recent years, there has been a nationwide, state-by-state
effort to modernize the criminal law. According to the latest
statistics compiled by the American Law Institute, 18 states
have modernized their criminal laws. Delaware, Pennsylvania,
North Dakota and Utah have acted within the past year. Six-
teen other states, including Florida, have revised criminal code
proposals yet to be enacted. Eight states have criminal code
projects well under way. In addition. Congress is presently
considering two proposals for the revision of Title 18, U. S.
Code, the Federal Criminal Code.
In Florida, we have criminal offenses spread throughout
the Florida Statutes. Title 44 abounds with inconsistencies and
useless anachronisms. It is a conglomerate of separate statutes
that are top-heavy with archaic references and short on effec-
tiveness. If one would take time to examine the legislative
history of many of the present provisions of Title 44, he would
1345
find that most of these provisions were drafted in 1868, and
only minor changes have been made since. It seems almost
unbelievable that in 105 years, Florida has never mounted a
full-scale revision of these statutes. We have the opportunity
now to re-establish the credibility of the criminal justice system
by adopting- a modern criminal code tailored to the challenges
of the 1970's.
There are some criminal statutes which may be outdated, not
because society condones the moral conduct proscribed, but
because experience has taught us that such laws are selectively
enforced and many times too expensive to administer. Some of
these statutes, moveover, constitute an unjustified burden on
the criminal justice system itself. They crowd police blotters
and clog court dockets. I am referring to the what have been
called "victimless crimes."
In dealing with the "victimless crime" issue, the essential
question is whether society has a prevailing interest such as
would justify the continued imposition of criminal sanctions.
Care should be taken to distinguish between crimes which are
clearly without a victim and those in which the family or
society itself is the victim. I believe that Florida should con-
tinue to strengthen its laws prohibiting gambling and prostitu-
tion, especially in the case of those who promote such activities
as an illicit business. I believe that Florida should strengthen
its laws prohibiting sex crimes, particularly those which in-
volve the youth. Sexual offenses committed by force upon chil-
dren should be subject to severe penalties.
There are certain improvements in the law contained in the
"Third Tentative Draft" of the Criminal Code Revision which
deserve special mention. For example, the chapter dealing with
child abuse and neglect of dependents substantially broadens
and strengthens our coverage of this area. The proposed chap-
ter on bribery, corrupt influence and abuse of office sets a new
standard in the area of official misconduct which is greatly
needed. This coupled with changes previously recommended will
improve our entire system of government. The provisions relat-
ing to obstruction of justice will effectively aid better law en-
forcement and give us the tools to combat those who would im-
pede the orderly administration of justice.
Over the years there has been a proliferation of penal stat-
utes because every minor offense, or violation of an administra-
tive statute has been classed as a second degree misdemeanor.
Decriminalization of such statutes by providing for a fine, for-
feiture, or other adequate civil remedy would effectively relieve
the criminal justice system of a huge, unnecessary, and expen-
sive burden, and result in a more effective disposition and thus
1346
serve as a more effective deterrent. The Myers Act is an ex-
cellent beginning.
An essential goal of Code Revision is to eliminate provisions
which do not clearly prescribe criminal conduct. Criminal stat-
utes should be in plain language; they should be written so that
everyone can understand them. At a time when societal re-
straints are increasingly complex, so much so that citizens and
law enforcement officials alike have great difficulty in correctly
interpreting the requirements of law so as to conform their con-
duct to "acceptable standards," this Legislature could perform
a great service by spelling out the basic standards of our state
in clear terms.
Among other things. Criminal Code Revision has recommended
an overhaul of statutes relating to bribery, corrupt practices,
and official misconduct. I recommend this effort. One of the
single most important, and yet one of the most fragile, assets
that a government can have is the trust of the people it serves.
Nothing can shatter that trust as quickly and thoroughly as cor-
ruption in public office. We should strengthen these laws.
To make equal the standards applicable to the average per-
son and to the public official, I urge you to enact a bribery
and corrupt practices act which is stronger than the one that
is presently under consideration by the Code Revision Commit-
tees.
The bill which I will propose is modeled in part on the ex-
cellent beginning made in Criminal Code Revision, but it bor-
rows from the landmark law enacted by the State of West
Virginia in 1970.
The measure I propose would :
(1) expand the coverage of the bribery statute to include
principal political party officials;
(2) clarify the definitions of "bribery;"
(3) include threats and retaliation in official and political
matters under its terms; and
(4) make it unlawful for a public servant to solicit or accept
a reward or compensation for past behavior.
For these reasons, it is imperative that decisive action be
taken this year to modernize our criminal code. The piece-meal
approach to reform of years past is no longer adequate. The
Criminal Justice Committees, chaired by Senator Richard Petti-
grew and Representative Jack Shreve are to be commended
for their extremely valuable work towards this goal.
1347
FLORIDA LAW ENFORCEMENT ACADEMY
I urge this Legislature to establish a law enforcement academy
program to upgrade the capabilities of law enforcement per-
sonnel throughout our state.
A national standard recommended by the National Commis-
sion on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals underscores the
importance of training and education of law enforcement
officers:
"Every state should, by 1978, guarantee the availability
of state approved police training to every sworn police
employee. Every state should encourage local, cooperative,
or regional police training programs to satisfy state train-
ing requirements, and, when these cannot satisfy the re-
quirements, criminal justice training centers including po-
lice training academies should be established by the
state."
The State of Florida cannot, in my judgment, wait until 1978
to provide our law enforcement officers with adequate train-
ing.
J. Edgar Hoover, who repeatedly stressed the need for im-
proved police training, said, "The efficiency of law enforce-
ment today is commensurate with the degree of training of
its officers. Only through modern police training can we keep
abreast of the times in the unceasing fight against lawless-
ness."
The proposed Law Enforcement Academy will have two basic
functions: (1) a field instruction program, and (2) a resident
instruction program.
The field instruction staff program will assist local law
enforcement agencies by providing a pool of instructional sup-
port for local recruit and specialized training. This field
training will complement the efforts of local criminal justice
institutes and academies. It will not supplant those efforts.
Basic recruit and advanced training programs will continue to
be held at the local level for city and county agencies.
The resident instruction program will provide basic recruit
training for all state law enforcement agencies, except the
Florida Highway Patrol. Moreover, specialized training will
be available to all law enforcement agencies in the State.
Cities and counties have gone to great expense and effort
to establish local training facilities and programs in coordi-
nation with the Florida Police Standards Board. The pro-
1348
posed programs of the Florida Law Enforcement Academy
will complement those efforts and capitalize on their experi-
ence. Significantly, the Academy will consolidate and improve
the state's training capabilities for state law enforcement
agencies such as the Florida Highway Patrol, Marine Patrol,
Beverage Division, Game and Fish Commission, Florida Depart-
ment of Law Enforcement, and State Attorney investigators.
Florida is not alone in this approach. According to a 1972
report of the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
thirty-four state law enforcement departments have state train-
ing facilities which train state and local officers.
In accordance with the certification program of the Police
Standards Board, the Florida Law Enforcement Academy will
help fill many gaps in our present approach to law enforce-
ment training. It will make available to the state and local
agencies: an expert, full-time instructional staff, a resident
facility for specialized training and research, a mobile train-
ing capability, a staff to support local programs, and a vehicle
which will foster standardization and quality control in the
state's law enforcement training efforts.
We recognize that the Academy, as with most innovative
proposals, has been a cause of controversy. But in its present
form, there appears to be significant support for its immediate
implementation. The Executive Board of the Florida Police
Chiefs Association voted unanimously in favor of the proposed
Law Enforcement Academy. The Florida Sheriffs Association
in executive session voted in favor of the proposed academy.
A recent survey conducted by the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement of all sheriffs and police departments in the
state indicated that 90% of those departments support a law
enforcement academy program which would be staffed and
equipped to prove specialized "skills training" for all law
enforcement officers.
Because law enforcement effectiveness hinges greatly on
training and ability, to send a law enforcement officer forth
without providing him with the expert knowledge and skills
needed constitutes disservice to the public and to the officer
himself.
I urge this Legislature to appropriate the necessary funds,
as outlined in my budget recommendations, to implement the
proposed Florida Law Enforcement Academy program.
HANDGUN CONTROL
The use of handguns in the commission of crime has become
a problem of such magnitude that it can no longer be ignored.
1349
While we must consider the individual's right to bear arms, we
must also consider the rights of victims against whom these
arms are all too frequently used.
In 1971, 51% of all homicides committed in the United
States involved the use of handguns. During the same period
in Florida, handguns played the major role in 54.6% of all
homicides. This percentage of occurrence has risen to 58.1%
during the 1972 reporting year. Significantly, the percentage
of times handguns used in the commission of robbery, aggra-
vated assault, assault on police officers and the killing of
police officers in Florida is equal to, or higher than, the national
averages for those crimes.
In addition, so called "Saturday Night Specials" are readily
available for purchase and immediate use in Florida for prices
ranging from $12 to $20, which in many cases includes the cost
of ammunition.
Since the shooting of Governor George Wallace and Senator
John Stennis, many have felt the need to do something about
attempts on the lives of public figures, not to mention the
20,000 less publicized shooting deaths in the United States each
year including more than 900 in Florida last year. The National
Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence esti-
mated that, as of 1968, there were 35 million rifles, 24 million
handguns and 31 million shotguns in civilian hands. These
weapons were used to commit 65% of all murders and more
than 100,000 robberies annually. Moreover, guns are a common
cause of accidental deaths and a favorite weapon in suicides.
In 1971, a million shortbarreled handguns were made in
America, similar to the ones that were used to kill Senator
Robert Kennedy and shoot Governor Wallace, and over 4,000
other citizens. Many of these weapons were fabricated from
foreign parts. The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, enacted in
response to the murders of Senator Kennedy and Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., banned the importation of handguns. As a
result, parts are now imported for assembly in our country.
More people have died of civilian gunfire since the year 1900
(800,000) than in all wars since and including the American
Revolution. Since 1835, there have been 41 documented assassi-
nation attempts against Presidents, governors, senators and
representatives. All too many of these attempts have been
successful.
While some form of handgun control is needed, a security
measure that would protect persons and property from all
harm is unattainable. The truth of that is conceded by The
National Commission on Violence: "[I]t is difficult to prevent
a determined assassin from killing, particularly when a men-
1350
tally or emotionally distraught person acts alone to avenge some
real or imagined wrong."
Accordingly, it has not been seriously proposed that the
estimated 90-million firearms in private possession be confis-
cated. Certainly that is not a responsible position, but one
nevertheless which is the apparent fear of the National Rifle
Association which opposes any legislation as a step in that
direction. The 1968 Gun Control Act banned interstate mail
order sales, provided for the recording of purchases so as to
trace owners and to limit imports. The Gun Control Act did
not prevent Arthur Bremer from legally purchasing a snub-
nosed revolver even though he had been arrested previously for
carrying a concealed weapon. Last year the United States
Senate passed a bill that would restrict sale of easily conceal-
able small handguns to police agencies, the military and to
those with lawful sporting purposes.
Our efforts in Florida are now in need of repair. In March
of this year, Florida's "Saturday Night Special" law was
declared unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court. The
effect is that the unregulated importation of weapons parts
from foreign sources for assembly, distribution and sale in
our state is now permitted. We are without an enforceable law
to control cheap handguns.
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover said, "[W]e must eliminate
'Saturday-night specials' if we are to reduce the incidents of
homicide". A carefully drafted statute in this area is needed.
Additionally, I strongly recommend the enactment of legislation
requiring a "cooling off period" between the time of purchase
and the time of possession by the buyer.
CONCERN FOR VICTIMS
This year, more than ever before, government has become
increasingly aware of the plight of those who are victims of
serious crime. I share this concern. According to the President's
Crime Commission Report, one of the most neglected subjects
in the study of crime is its victims; it is the individual, his
household and his business that bear the brunt of crime in the
United States.
The United States Senate recently passed a bill which would
provide monetary compensation to victims of certain serious
crimes. The Florida Legislature will also be considering legis-
lation for victim compensation. Although I have some philo-
sophical reservations regarding the concept of victim compensa-
tion, I recommend that a meaningful effort — perhaps a pilot
effort — be initiated this year.
1351
PORNOGRAPHY
The rights of free speech and expression are cherished
liberties guaranteed by the United States and Florida Consti-
tutions. These cherished liberties must not be compromised.
Our efforts to curtail the distribution of hard-core pornography
are premised on the generally accepted fact that those rights
are not absolute. And as we can be sanctioned for yelling
"fire" in a crowded theatre, so may we be proscribed from
conduct that could reasonably be expected to result in an
increased threat to the personal safety on citizens and well-
being of society.
Many Floridians have expressed indignation at the pandering
of obscene materials in our State. The availability of hard-core
pornography has increased drastically. Lurid advertisernents
and announcements daily assault the sensibilities of Floridians,
young and old. Some drive-in theatres are exhibiting obscene
movies in view of surrounding residents or passing motorists.
The primary reason for this proliferation is that Florida has
no enforceable statute to control the distribution and sale of
hard-core pornography. Enforcement of Florida's present stat-
ute has been stayed by the Supreme Court until its constitu-
tionality is determined. When the Supreme Court will act is
unclear. The case has been on appeal for almost three years.
Meanwhile, Florida has been helpless against the deluge of
pornography which has been openly and aggressively pandered
in our state.
To stop this deluge, the Legislature should enact legislation
that will give our law enforcement officers an effective tool
against those who promote, distribute, and pander obscene
matter. Such legislation would be a futile gesture, however,
without some assurance that it would pass constitutional muster.
Careful analysis should be made, therefore, to determine the
constitutionally permissible latitude in this area of the law so
that cherished constitutional rights are not abridged.
I will propose legislation that would effectively curtail the
dissemination of hard-core pornography. It would be supple-
mental to the statutes now under court challenge. The major
thrust of this legislation is aimed at those who promote obscene
material. Carefully drawn definitions from other successful
state statutes, such as those of Georgia, have been included.
The proposed legislation consists of three bills.
(1) A criminal statute enforceable against wholesalers, dis-
tributors, retailers, promoters, and manufacturers.
1352
(2) A civil statute enabling a citizen to obtain injunctive
relief or civil compensatory damages.
(3) A statute by which a prior adversary hearing would be
held if it is finally determined that such a hearing is
a constitutional requirement.
This program is designed to include a comprehensive, but
enforceable criminal statute consistent with the Constitutions
that will be an effective tool against the hard-core pornography
in Florida. Under these proposals, the private citizen would be
authorized to initiate civil action (either by injunction or by a
suit for damages). In this way, each citizen would be able to
assist in the control of obscene material in their own com-
munity.
BAIL REFORM
The present system of "money bail" in Florida discriminates
against the indigent and poor.
The bail system is intended to assure an individual's attend-
ance at trial, but the manner in which it is administered does
not take into account the pertinent social, family or character
traits which may indicate the probability of a person's ap-
pearance at trail. The present system simply measures one's
ability to pay without regard to the potential threat to society
which may be presented when the accused is returned to the
streets, to his home or his job.
It is estimated by the Florida Department of Administration,
from recent studies on bail and detention, that in 1971 at least
48% of the accused who were charged with bailable felonies
and 20% of those charged with misdemeanors could not post
the required money bail. This resulted in the pretrial incarcera-
tion in 1971 of approximately 38,255 persons in Florida jails
at an average cost of $4.04 per day, per person.
The cost is staggering. The utility of the system in its present
form is questionable, at best. Although it is not known how
many of these persons were incarcerated on any given day,
it is evident that substantial savings could result from changes
in the system. This, of course, does not take into account the
dollar cost to the public for welfare support to assist the de-
pendant family or the economic and psychological cost to the
families affected. This problem is further exacerbated by the
damage done to the accused's work record and to his employ-
ability while he is awaiting trial.
1353
The Department of Administration estimates that an adequate
"release on recogn^izance investigation" costs approximately
equal to the cost of incarcerating the individual for two weeks
in the county jail. Considering the fact that accused persons are
not infrequently incarcerated for periods of 8 to 12 weeks prior
to trial, or other disposition, a tremendous savings of public
money could potentially be derived by releasing on their own
recognizance those accused who are found to be a potential
threat to society. Bail reform would not only represent a
savings in tax dollars, but it would also help to eliminate
the serious overcrowding in Florida jails.
National studies conducted in areas where bail reform pro-
grams have been enacted demonstrate that of all those persons
released on recognizance less than 1% have failed to appear
for their court hearing or trial. Furthermore, those studies show
that the rehabilitative process is significantly enhanced for
those offenders who are ultimately convicted and placed on
probation and who do not spend the time prior to trial, in jail.
Finally, for those innocent persons who were accused and later
acquitted of a crime, the release on recognizance system does
not impose irreparable damage to their lives, families and oc-
cupations and sometimes forcing these families onto the welfare
cycle. It is essential, therefore, that we modify our bail system
in order to require the trial judge to release an offender on
his own recognizance unless it is shown that the offender's
employment record, family ties or past experience indicate a
strong probability that he may not appear at trial or hearing.
In summary, reforming the bail bonding system in Florida
would (1) eliminate the injustice imposed upon indigent and
poor offenders, (2) save substantial tax dollars, and (3) main-
tain an assurance that the accused person will appear in court,
such reform is overdue.
One final comment on bail reform. The President's President's
Crime Commission advises that more "strictly enforced criminal
penalties for willful non-appearance should provide a deterrent
to flight." I agree. Bail reform in Florida should include swift
and sure penalties for those who fail to appear.
PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION
The unmanaged flow of offenders through the state correc-
tions system is the most critical problem facing Florida's
correction system.
One of the reasons for the present overcrowding problem
is that approximately 27.6% of the felony dispositions result
in a prison commitment. That rate exceeds by approximately
1354
one-half the prevailing rate throughout the country. The Division
of Corrections is currently housing in excess of 10,000 inmates,
and it has had to "close its doors" to new admissions twice
during recent months. Many county jails are overcrowded,
court dockets are congested, and in many areas no relief is in
sight.
Based on a preliminary analysis of the 1972 Florida Uniform
Crime Reports, Crime in Florida, nearly 46% of all Florida of-
fenders are under the age of 25; this represents approximately
180,000 individuals. With recidivism rates ranging anywhere
from 60% to 90%, it is obvious from these rates that the cost
in wasted human lives, in property, and in tax dollars is appall-
ing.
One alternative to the traditional approach rehabilitation is
"pre-trial diversion". Pre-trial diversion affords for treatment
immediately following apprehension, at the time when rehabili-
tative efforts should begin. A pre-trial diversion program makes
available services such as comprehensive diagnosis and evalua-
tion, intensive counseling and supervision, psychiatric treatment,
vocational training, and job placement. These services are pro-
vided immediately after arrest and continue usually for periods
of from three to six months. Satisfactory completion of the
program results in the final discharge of the offender without
the damaging stigma of a criminal record.
A survey of pre-trial diversionary programs indicates that
present efforts in other states are demonstrating their value.
A limited experience of seven major U. S. cities indicates a
"success rate" ranging up to 87% when working with youthful
offenders.
Based on a cost-benefit analysis of a pilot pre-trial program
in Dade County, the costs of handling 125 cases by the method
of diverting an offender to a pre-trial program in comparison
to the traditional means of incarceration, trial and disposition
may be summarized as follows :
Pre-Trial Intervention Costs (125 cases) $ 86,925
Incarceration Costs (125 cases) $309,443
Based on this limited comparison, it can be concluded that it
may be significantly less costly to divert a case to a pre-trial
program than to process it, in the traditional manner, through
disposition in the criminal courts.
Circuit Judge Ben F. Overton, Chairman, Conference of
Circuit Judges, advised a report on the recent National Con-
ference of Criminal Justice, that of the "proposed standards af-
fecting the courts, this (pre-trial diversion) should be examined
1355
closely for possible full implementation in Florida." Clearly,
then, new approaches working within recognized standards and
goals for rehabilitating offenders, such as pre-trial diversion,
should be thoroughly considered without delay.
Having' recognized the importance of the pre-trial interven-
tion treatment approach, my budget recommendations includes
$156,000 from the U. S. Department of Labor and $377,500 from
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to be utilized for
pre-trial diversionary programs. I invite the Legislature to study
these proposals for possible expansion of this useful concept.
YOUTH CRIME AND DELINQUENCY
Nearly six years ago, the President's Commission on Law En-
forcement and Administration of Justice stated that ". . . Amer-
ica's best hope for reducing crime is to reduce juvenile delin-
quency and youth crime. . ." It said that the best preventive
medicine to the problems encountered in the adult correctional
system was a more viable and effective rehabilitation services
to youth.
In Florida the problem of delinquency and youth crime is
particularly significant. School age youth, of ages between five
and eighteen, represent less than one-fourth of our population,
but account for more than one-half of all arrests for serious
crimes.
Recognizing these facts, we must continue to strengthen our
juvenile justice system, not only because neglect of the problem
fosters careers of crime, but also because our youth are our
most valuable natural resource. The juvenile justice objectives
of this administration include policies and programs:
1) To proceed to implement a state-operated system of juve-
nile detention services.
2) To prohibt the use of jails in detaining children and to
administratively restrict the detention of children under 12 years
of age, except in the most rare and justified circumstances;
3) To expand the juvenile jurisdiction of circuit courts to
include 17 year olds, phasing out this age group from our adult
institutions to help reduce overcrowding and to provide more
individualized treatment for youth of that age;
4) To establish a "youthful offender" statute, improved pro-
bation and parole supervision, and to increase the use of diver-
sionary alternatives for non-capital offenders of ages between
18 and 25;
1356
5) To continue development of community-based treatment
facilities including foster-family group homes for delinquent
children in order to offer more individualized attention, and to
provide for more flexible transfer procedures within the De-
partment of Health and Rehabilitative Services from one divi-
sion to another to assure the most appropriate treatment of
juvenile offenders.
6) To increase our attention to the needs of school-age youth,
by encouraging citizen interest and involvement and developing
preventive and diversionary alternatives and innovative pro-
grams to reduce juvenile delinquency and youth crime;
7) To undertake assessment of program accountability and
cost effectiveness of our correctional efforts. Quality of service
is as important as quantity of service, and efforts should be
commenced to provide for maximum staff development and train-
ing, research, evaluation, and coordinated long-range planning
for a more effective and just system.
Finally, we should also explore the advisability of revising
the jurisdiction of circuit courts over school truants, runaways,
incorrigible children and other "children in need of supervision"
(CINS) and placing these children under the supervision of an
administrative body that would prescribe appropriate preventive
and diversionary action. I believe it is desirable to develop the
capacity where only those "delinquent" acts considered a crime
if committed by adults should require formal judicial action.
ADULT CORRECTIONS REFORM
In March, 1972, I initiated the Governor's Adult Corrections
Reform project as an interagency planning effort involving
the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Parole
and Probation Commission, Governor's Council on Criminal
Justice and Department of Administration. The purpose of this
effort was to focus on the long-range need for an effective and
efficient adult corrections program and design a model system
which would be capable of meeting those needs.
The "model" correctional system was developed over a one-
year period through examination of nearly all major studies,
other state systems, and commission reports, incorporating the
best known evidence and practices into a viable and cohesive
system. The model defines in detail what the goals and objec-
tives of our correctional system should be as well as the activi-
ties and structure necessary to satisfy those goals and objectives.
Our approach to be employed will be a well developed,
agency-based planning and evaluative mechanism which will
1357
continue to improve on the model system by deferring its
activities and thoroughly testing and evaluating its programs
and concepts, as a prerequisite to improvement of corrections
programs. This mechanism will provide the basis for an im-
proved management process which integrates the planning and
budgeting activities into a two-stage annual decision-making
process, whereby we can examine plans on their contributive
merit, prior to a detailed analysis of cost. Consequently, we
will be in a stronger position to examine the growth and
development of offender rehabilitations programs and monitor
the long-range reform effort.
The corrections reform project has also produced a Problems
and Needs Report, which is a complete analysis of where we
are in corrections today, including our major problem areas,
why they exist, and what to do about them. This document
served as a guide for our FY 73-74 Budget recommendations,
which were specifically directed at three major problem areas.
First, the ever-present problem of an unmanaged flow of
offenders through our system, manifested by the fact that
decisions as to who will enter the system, what will happen to
them while they are there, and when they will leave the
system has in the past escaped accountability, forcing us to
merely accommodate ever-increasing populations rather than
manage them.
To this end we have recommended that we attempt once
more to accommodate our corrections population in a humane
manner and provide the funds necessary for temporary facili-
ties to ease institutional overcrowding immediately as well as
funds to construct new facilities for future needs which will
conform to the guidelines of our model system. However, the
major emphasis within this problem area will continue to rest
on our community-based programs and the alternatives they
offer to mass incarceration. To this end I am recommending
pilot projects in intensive supervision and pre-trial diversion
with stringent evaluation in order to explore the actual benefits
of such programs. We must also continue our Community Cor-
rectional Center program and expand its concept to one of
small, community-based treatment centers as alternatives to
full-scale imprisonment.
In the "State of the State" address to the 1971 Legislature,
I stated that:
". . . [C]riminal Justice has suffered in this state be-
cause of a lack of coordination between the professional
staffs of the Division of Corrections and the Probation and
Parole Commission. I urge you to explore the possibility of
1358
removing the field staff from the Parole Commission and
placing it within the Department of Health and Rehabilita-
tion Services."
The removal of the field staff was explored, but no definitive
action was taken. Opponents to the concept suggested that the
management problem could be resolved by increased funding.
Each year since 1971 I have recommended substantial budget
increases in the field services component of the Parole and
Probation Commission, not only to keep pace with the ever-
increasing workload demands but, more importantly, to foster
the development of the rehabilitative and efficiency potential
of our community-based supervision programs.
Efficiency and cost-savings are not insignificant considera-
tions. The design of the present system breeds, if not requires,
unnecessary duplication because of the maintenance of separate
management and field staffs. The duplication of records and
information systems maintained by the two agencies is reason
alone to further explore the possibility of transferring the
Parole Commission field staff or otherwise integrating the
functions of these important agencies.
In view of the foregoing, I would support full consideration
by this Legislature of all alternatives available which would
more effectively coordinate our fragmented adult corrections
services, with particular emphasis on the offender-flow problems
of the system.
Second, is the critical need to develop a capability to evaluate
our correctional programs and plan effectively toward future
needs. We have been neglectful of this task in the past and as a
consequence are confronted each year with spending vast
amounts of money without knowing what the benefits will be,
or even if there will be any. To this end I am recommending
the creation of a basic planning and research capability within
our corrections agencies to perform the much needed task of
program evaluation and planning. Furthermore, I am recom-
mending the transfer of the Governor's Council on Criminal
Justice to the Department of Administration to function within
the total state planning responsibilities of the Department. This
will ensure the establishment of a comprehensive planning
program for criminal justice by coordinating and supporting
the planning activities of criminal justice agencies.
Third, is our tremendous task of providing an effective
treatment program to offenders in order to ensure that upon
release from our system, they do not again resort to crime
and violence. In the past we have not fully recognized that a
large percentage of offenders are people with serious problems
1359
which either deny them the means to pursue legitimate goals
or incline them toward abnormal behavior generally. We cannot
pretend to understand the complex psycho-social dynamics of
criminal behavior, but if criminals are to be effectively dealt
with, then our programs and services must reflect a conscienti-
ous attempt at redirecting their lives toward legitimacy and self-
sufficiency. Consequently, our programs must address the pys-
chological, social, and vocational needs of offenders and be
measured by their ability to correct criminal behavior. To this
end I am recommending the establishment of special treatment
facilities on a pilot basis to explore these means as potentially
more effective ways of delivering services to offenders and
dealing with their problems. It is also necessary that we begin
to separate offenders with severe psychological problems so
as to more effectively bring treatment resources to bear on that
potentially dangerous group.
The incarceration and treatment of the "criminally insane"
inmate causes unique security problems. Recently, these prob-
lems have become acute in some segments of the corrections-
mental health system. To alleviate this problem, I have sub-
mitted a supplemental budget recommendation calling for an
appropriation of $3 million to construct a facility in which to
maintain these inmates in a custodial environment which will
minimize the possibility of escape or similar security breach,
and also enhance the rehabilitative treatment of these inmates.
I urge your support of this appropriation.
Summary of Recommendations
Areas of Major Concern
Parole and Probation
1. To implement a pretrial intervention program
and continue expansion of the Multi-Phasic
Diagnostic and Treatment Program $ 357,131
2. To improve the current staffing ratio by
excluding certain supervisors from the staffing
formula 424,516
3. To continue operation of the Intensive Super-
vision Programs (Parole and Probation) and
reduce staffing ratio 530,011
4. To provide a planning and research capability 110,324
5. To provide a centralized Staff Development
Center - 110,443
95-158 O - 73 - pt. 3 -- 26
1360
6. To develop and improve management informa-
tion systems and interface with FCIC 279,473
7. To provide attorneys' fees for parole violators
(as required by the courts) 25,000
8. To maintain current client/staff ratio and
provide for increased workload 1,973,160
TOTAL 3,808,058
Summary of Recommendations
Areas of Major Concern
Division of Corrections
1. To increase discharge allowance from $50 to
$75 $ 94,800
2. To expand planning and research capabilities 152,034
3. To improve recreational and food services 367,434
4. To establish a pre-release training program .... 282,732
5. To establish one Special Client Treatment
facility and four special vocational training
centers 1,742,123
6. To maintain current client /staff ratio and
provide for increased workload 2,572,945
7. To provide for a comprehensive staff develop-
ment program 555,074
8. To provide temporary facilities for 1200 ad-
ditional inmates 6,000,000
9. To improve inmate housing capability (reno-
vations and repairs - bed space related) 9,788,000
10. Lump sum allocation for 1200 new beds by
1976 - 24,000,000
11. Renovations and new construction for voc/ed
facilities 2,349,000
12. Additional Appropriation for criminally insane
program 3,000,000
TOTAL 50,949,142
I have made additional recommendations within the areas
of staff development and management information systems.
1361
as well as necessary increases in staffing to keep pace with
rapidly growing workloads. These recommendations, combined
with other requests for continuation funding, I believe, provides
a very balanced attack on the problems confronting our adult
corrections system and sets the stage for an all out effort of
reform.
I urge each of you to study the Adult Corrections Reform
document; it is available to you and to your committees upon
request. I hope you will work with us in realizing not only its
implications for reform but the continued utilization and de-
velopment of the interagency, knowledge-based planning
mechanism.
STATE ATTORNEYS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS
In January of this year, Florida's judicial system began
operating under a revised judicial article which made drastic
and innovative improvements over the judicial system which
had existed previously. Under our new judicial structure, Florida
can be second to no other state in fair and prompt administra-
tion of justice. Indeed, Florida may be studied as a model by
those states who hope to achieve excellence of structure in
their own judiciary.
The Florida Supreme Court furnished great leadership not
only in assisting in the adoption of our revised judicial article,
but in implementing the new court system with a vast and
progressive revision of the criminal rules of procedure. The new
criminal rules complement the other judicial reform improve-
ments.
The new challenge which you have before you is to allow
this great system to achieve its ultimate potential by properly
funding those who are directly charged with the responsibility
of implementing the new procedures.
In an effort to determine the total impact of these changes
on our state atomeys and public defenders, we are in the process
of creating a new management information data system based
upon case information reports submitted by each state attorney
and public defender. This reporting system was developed as a
result of a series of meetings of a committee composed of rep-
resentatives from the Governor's Council on Criminal Justice,
the Department of Administration, the Florida Department of
Law Enforcement Data Center, the Auditor General's Office,
the State Court Administrator's Office, and representatives of
the state attorneys and public defenders.
1362
A reporing system will be operational, on a test basis, April
16, and the system hopefully will be fully operational by June
1st of this year.
One of the greatest additional responsibilities which was not
considered in the original budget request for state atorneys is
that of total responsibility for all criminal justice intake.
Criminal justice intake is at the "threshold" of the entire sys-
tem. Criminal intake involves a thorough screening of all citi-
zen complaints and reports of offenses to determine whether
there is an adequate basis upon which to proceed. This intake
function was previously done by the justices of the peace and
county judges.
The new rules of criminal procedure mandate many functions
which were previously not performed by the state attorney and
public defenders. Under the new rules, advisory or "first ap-
pearance" hearings must be held daily, necessitating prosecutors
and public defenders staffing these hearings on Saturdays and
Sundays as well as during the week.
Under the revised system, state attorneys are now charged
with the responsibility of prosecuting in the juvenile courts.
The intake and prosecution in these courts has increased signifi-
cantly the volume of work performed by each state attorney's
office.
As a result of a recent Supreme Court decision (Argersinger
v. Hamlin), indigent defendants charged with any offense for
which conviction could result in imprisonment are entitled to
legal services provided by the state. As a result the state now
has the responsibility of representing those who are charged
with most misdemeanors.
The complexities of handling any given case from its inception
until its conclusion have also increased significantly. The prose-
cution and defense functions have been unusually dynamic in
recent years, and they stand today as one of the most sophisti-
cated functions of state government.
When my budget recommendations were submitted for state
attorneys and public defenders, they were based upon budgets
prepared with reference to the demands as they existed under
the old system. State attorneys and public defenders did not,
and could not have anticipated the tremendous change and in-
crease in work load wrought by the revisions of Article V and
the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
As a former Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Commit-
tee, I am not unmindful of the many years of hard, conscien-
1363
tious work of past Legislatures and their staffs in an attempt
to devise an equitable basis for funding state attorneys and
public defenders. Since being Governor, I have encouraged the
Department of Administration, working in conjunction with the
offices, to explore all reasonable funding formulae. The Manage-
ment Information System, referred to above, is an attempt to
devise an objective, data-based rationale for funding purposes.
I am advised that the state attorneys and public defenders have
made significant progress toward these goals and have presented
workable formulae to the respective legislative committees. I
sincerely hope that a formula can be agreed upon within the
next few weeks for the funding of these important offices which
would make a more equitable distribution of funds to the var-
ious circuits than has been possible under the per capita based
formula used in past years.
APPELLATE REVIEW OF SENTENCES
One of the most striking ironies of the law is the manner
in which sentences are imposed. The guilt-determining process
of our criminal justice system is safeguarded by many proce-
dural rules, by many rules of evidence, and by a carefully struc-
tured system of appellate review designed to expose error and
injustice. However, in the great majority of criminal convictions
in this country, the issue of guilt is not disputed. What is dis-
puted, and what is becoming an ever increasing problem in our
criminal justice system, is the question of the appropriate
punishment.
After determination of guilt or innocence, an issue stipulated
in more than 90% of criminal cases, the most important deci-
sion for the criminal offender, and the public itself, is the
sentence. However, by comparison to the care with which the
less-frequent problem of guilt is resolved, the protections af-
forded in the majority of jurisdictions to the sentencing process
are indeed disproportionate. In short, the intricate protections
and safeguards afforded to offenders during the pre-trial and
trial stages, give way to the widest latitude of judicial discretion
at the point of sentencing. In the majority of jurisdictions, the
sole responsibility for this vital function rests in a single judge.
Arbitrary sentencing decisions can be detrimental to the entire
rehabilitation or correctional process. An offender who believes
he has been sentenced unfairly in relation to other offenders
will not be receptive to reformative efforts on his behalf. Addi-
tionally, as sentencing decision-making becomes more complex,
the likelihood of disparate sentence increases.
1364
In a recent study conducted by the Southeastern Correctional
and Criminological Research Center, it was found that black men
adjudged guilty of forcible rape are sentenced to terms of seven
years longer than white men convicted for the same crime. For
armed robbery, the disparity between blacks and whites is
almost four years, for unarmed robbery, it is two years and for
aggravated assault, one year. On the other hand, whites receive
longer sentences than blacks for the crimes of grand larceny,
auto theft, burglary and escape. In these cases, however, the dis-
crepancy is never more than one year. When age is the compar-
ative factor, the study found that, in general, blacks of all ages
receive higher sentences than whites for crimes of personal
violence.
Several jurisdictions, in an attempt to provide better safe-
guards at the sentencing stage, are implementing sentencing
review techniques to reduce disparate and irrational sentencing.
The American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards
for Criminal Justice examined the major ends to be served by
a sentence review process. The project concluded that the most
apparent benefit of sentence review is that it would provide
the criminal justice system with a means by which the grossly
excessive sentence can be corrected. Additionally, sentence
review would force the sentencing decision much more into the
open, thereby exposing for correction many of the mistakes
that need not be made. Finally, sentence review would also
induce respect for law in that a convicted offender who has an
opportunity to air his grievance is much more likely to approach
rehabilitation with a positive attitude than an offender who
is convinced that one man did him wrong and concludes that
he can do nothing about it.
Presently, a defendant in Florida cannot have his case re-
viewed if he feels that he is the victim of a legal, but excessive
sentence. Absent legislative authority, the Florida Supreme
Court has held on at least four occasions that an appellate
court is not concerned with the term of the sentence imposed
so long as it is within the lawful limits set by the Legislature.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that the appellate
court should refuse to consider whether the jury should have
recommended leniency. Accordingly, it is within the province
of the Legislature to initiate a sentence review procedure to
address disparate and/or irrational sentencing.
A number of our sister states have instituted and maintain
sentence review procedures. For example, in Hawaii the state
supreme court may affirm, reverse or modify the order, judg-
ment or sentence of the trial court. If in its opinion the
sentence is illegal or excessive it may correct the sentence to
1365
correspond with the verdict or finding or reduce the same, as
the case may be. Massachusetts has an appellate division of
superior court for review of sentences which consist of three
judges. The appellate division has jurisdiction to consider an
appeal with or without a hearing, review the judgment so far
as it relates to the sentence imposed when the sentence appealed
from was imposed and has jurisdiction to amend the judgment
by ordering a different appropriate sentence or sentences or
any other disposition of the case. No sentence can be increased
without giving the defendant an opportunity to be heard.
New York statutes empower the appellate court to reverse,
affirm or modify the judgment, or sentence and order a new
trial. The appellate court can reduce the sentence imposed to
a sentence not lighter than the minimum penalty provided
by law.
The American Bar Association has recommended that, in
principle, judicial review should be available for all sentences
imposed in cases where provision is made for review of the
conviction. This is specifically meant to include review of sen-
tences imposed after a guilty plea, and of a resentence in the
same class of cases.
Although review of every such sentence ought to be avail-
able, it is recognized that it may be desirable at least for an
initial experimental period to place a reasonable limit on the
length and kind of sentence that should be subject to review.
I encourage your review of this subject with the hope that
progress can be made this year toward implementing an effec-
tive review process.
COURTS
Florida enjoys an enviable position among other states.
Thanks to the recent revision of the judicial article of our
state constitution, our court system is unified and the admin-
istration of criminal justice streamlined and reformed. All of
those who labored so hard for the reform of our court system
are to be commended.
But, as pointed out in the preceding section, the effort and
commitment to improve our judicial system cannot stop with
the adoption of Article V. The new court system must be imple-
mented and adequately funded if we are to keep our pledge
to the electorate whose vote gave birth to the new system.
1366
My budget message acknowledged these considerations by
recommending increases in general revenue funding of 87.3%
for the Supreme Court, from 12.8% to 30.2% for the District
Courts of Appeal, approximately 50% for circuit courts, and
99.8% for county courts. I am confident that these recom-
mendations, coupled with those of Chief Justice Vassar Carlton
as set forth in his recent address to this Legislature, adequately
demonstrate the needs of the Judicial Branch. I commend these
recommendations to your thoughtful consideration.
I would like to express my appreciation to the House and
Senate Criminal Justice Committees and their staffs and to
Attorney General Robert L. Shevin for their advice and assist-
ance in the preparation of parts of this message.
In conclusion, if we are to make our homes and our streets
safe and if we are to be able to meet the myriad other chal-
lenges wrought by crime and delinquency, we must take bold
and positive steps to improve our criminal justice system. The
views and recommendations set forth in this message are not
the si7ie qua no7i of meaningful reform and improvement in the
system. These recommendations, with few exceptions, are in-
tended as a catalyst and a point of departure, if you will, for
further legislative consideration. As Governor, I pledge the con-
tinued cooperation of the Executive Branch so that meaningful
improvements in the criminal justice system, as outlined above —
and others which you have under consideration — will be enacted
at this legislative session.
GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE
307 East Seventh Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
1367
Chairman PEPPER. This hearinji- is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the hearing- was adjourned, subject to the
call of the Chair.]
[The following- resolution, passed by the House of Representatives
created the Select Committee on Crime in the 93d Congress:]
93d congress
1st Session
H. RES. 256
[Report No. 93-31]
IN THE HOUSE OF EEPRESENTATIVES
February 27,1973
Mr. Pepper, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution:
w hich was referred to the House Calendar and ordei-ed to 'be printed
February 28, 1973
Considered and agreed fx)
RESOLUTION
1 Besolved, That efltective Janiiary 3, 1973, and until
2 June 30, 1973, there is hereby created a select committee
3 to be composed of eleven Members of the House of Repre-
4 sentatives to be appointed by the Speaker, one of whom lie
5 shall designate as chairman. Any vacancy occurring in the
6 membership of the select committee shall be filled in the
7 same manner in which the original appointment was made.
8 Sec. 2. The select committee is authorized and directed
9 to conduct a full and complete investigation and study of all
10 aspects of crime affecting the United States, including, but
11 not limited to, (1) its elements, causes, and extent; (2) the
V
1368
2
1 preparation, collection, and dissemination of statistics and
2 duta ; ()>) the sharing of information, statistics, and data
3 among law enforcement agencies, Federal, State, and local,
4 including the exchange of information, statistics, and data
5 with foreign nations; (4) the ade(|uacy of law enforcement
6 and the administration of justice, including constituticmal
7 issues and problems pertaining thereto; (5) the effect of
8 crime and disturbances in the metropolitan urban areas; (6)
9 the effect, directly or indirectly, of crime on the commerce
10 of the Nation; (7) the treatment and rehabilitation of per-
il sons convicted of crime; (8) measures relating to the re-
12 duction, control, or prevention of crime; (9) measures
13 relating to the improvement of (A) investigation and detec-
14 tion of crime, (B) law enforcement techniques, including,
15 but not limited to, increased cooperation among the law en-
16 forcement agencies, and (C) the effective administration of
17 justice; and (10) measures and programs for increased
Ig respect for the law and constitutional authority.
19 Si:c. o. For the pur})ose of making such investigations
20 'iii<^l studies, the committee or an}^ suhconnnittee thereof is
21 authorized to sit and act, subject to clause 31 of rule XI of
22 the Eules of the House of Representatives, during the pres-
23 ent Congress at such times and places within the United
24 States, including any Commonwealth or possession thereof,
'25' whether the House is meeting, has recessed, or has ad-
1369
3
1 joiirncd, and to hold sucli hearings and require, hy i-ub-
2 pena or otherwise, tlie attendance and testimony of such
3 witnesses and the })rodii(tion of such books, records, corre-
4 spondenco, memorandums, papers, and documents, as it deems
5 necessary. Sub})enas may be issued over the signature of the
6 chairman of the committee or any member designated by
7 him and may be served by any person designated by such
^ & diairman or member.
9 Sec, 4. The select conmiittee shall report to the House
10 as soon as possible with respect to the results^ of its investi-
11 gations, hearings, and studies, together with such recom-
12 mendations as it deems advisable and shall submit its final
13 report not later than June 30, 1973. Any such report or
14 reports which are made when the House is not in session
15 shall be filed with the Clerk of the House. The select com-
16 mittee shall cease to exist on June 30, 1973, and its records,
17 files, and all current material in its possession shall be trans-
18 ferrcd to the Oonnnittec on the Judiciary.
o
GENERAU BOOKBINDING CO
lit 13 '
QUALITY CONTROL MARK
. "I P 7027
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBBARY
III
9999 05018 322 5
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11